Sheila M. Riley, FEDLINK Advisory Council (FAC) Minutes of the FAC Electronic Meeting - June 17 -23, 1999 (extended through June 24) FAC Present: FAC Absent: FLICC/FEDLINK Present: Maxine Brown (Chair) Mike Conklin Susan Tarr Denise Lomax Bonnie Klein Milton MeGee Kn Nero (Vice-Chair) Ruby Thomas Carla Pomager Sheila Riley Cheryl Thomas Guest: Fred Rettenmaier Mrcia Talley, OCLC Users Council Representative Milton MeGee opened the meeting at 9:14 a.m. on June 17, 1999 by sending the agenda, attachments and ground rules. AGENDA 1. Approval of the April 21, 1999 FAC Meeting Minutes - Discussion Leader: Maxine Brown, FAC Chair 2. OCLC Users Council Meeting Report - Discussion Leader: Marcia Talley, UC Representative 3. Customer Service Report - Discussion Leader: Ruby Thomas, FEDLINK Member Services Coordinator 4. Pricing Research Status - Discussion Leader: Susan Tarr, FLICC Executive Director 5. Technical Processing BOA Renewal - Discussion Leader: Milton MeGee, FEDLINK Coordinator Attachments: April FAC minutes; May OCLC Users Council Meeting minutes; copy of the FEDLINK article on Customer Service; and a statement regarding the continuation of Technical Processing Services for FY2000. Ground Rules: þ Each agenda topic is assigned a discussion leader who initiates dialog on the subject with opening observations/questions early on the first meeting day and who summarizes or otherwise facilitates the discussion. He/she will also call for a vote if needed. þ The length of each electronic meeting will be stated in the agenda and the end date will close discussion. Should a vote be required, i.e. approval of the minutes of a previous meeting, a separate closing date may be specified and a vote date deadline stated. þ To encourage open discussion all comments/statements are to be considered confidential to the "group" and no messages should be forwarded to anyone not within the FAC except for included guests on a topic by topic basis. þ Members are asked to stay focused on the agenda topics. Should other topics of interest arise, they should be noted for future meeting agendas. þ Members are requested to comment on each topic or submit a "no comment" by topic number should that be the case. (The purpose is to ensure that each member has reviewed each topic and exercised his/her option/responsibility to participate.) 1. Approval of the April 21, 1999 FAC Meeting Minutes -- Maxine Brown, FAC Chair Fred Rettenmaier moved that the minutes of April 21, 1999 be accepted. Denise Lomax seconded the motion. Maxine announced on June 23rd that the FAC had approved the minutes. 1. OCLC Users Council Meeting Report - Marcia Talley, OCLC UC Representative to FAC þ Marcia Talley pointed the FAC to a keynote address (not in the OCLC minutes) given by Roy Tennant (UC, Berkeley) (see http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/mar/coffman.htm) þ On the section in the Minutes that deals with the Task Force on Shared Commitments, Marcia asked, "Does FEDLINK have any input to OCLC on its planned review of the pricing structure for adding holdings?" She added, "One thing that occurred to me is that a large percentage of the OCLC database is built via tape loads from federal libraries -- LC and GPO. Are we getting an adequate amount of credit for this valuable contribution?" Susan Tarr responded, " Since OCLC buys LC's MARC records from the CDS service, I don't believe LC gets holding credit for the bulk of its cataloging. Also, LC's records do not count in the formula for how many delegates FEDLINK gets on Users Council. GPO, however, does get credit for original records and holdings. We can check with them to see if they think the compensation is adequate. We are often more concerned about the balance of costs and credits for smaller libraries. I believe we have raised issues re. tapeload costs and credits because so many of our members do share their records through tapeload." þ Marcia noted that "A recommendation is also made that the regional networks (eg. FEDLINK) 'with the assistance of OCLC' (which needs to be defined) will help track non-compliance in member federal libraries. How would this be done?" Susan Tarr responded, "The issue of policing non-compliant OCLC members is a difficult one for all networks. Some of my network colleagues are reluctant to deal with this because they have one or two very large libraries that aren't contributing records or holdings, and they don't particularly want to risk these libraries' participation in the network by giving them an ultimatum on this issue. For FEDLINK, I think our concern is more with the small libraries using local systems who have to undergo the expense of tape loading. It's also a matter of priorities for staff; I don't see the payoff for going after a limited number of small libraries, except in terms of the principle. Perhaps CatExpress will provide a technical option that will allow small libraries a quick, unobtrusive way to contribute their holdings to WorldCat." Susan asked other FAC members: Do you think this is an important issue for FEDLINK staff to spend time on? Susan asked Marcia, "What were the most convincing arguments in the Users Council discussions, and do you think they apply in the federal library context as well as the research library context?" Sheila Riley said that beyond FEDLINK issuing periodic reminders on the value of sharing holdings for ILL, etc..., she didn't think it was FEDLINK's role to push non-compliant libraries. She suggested that FEDLINK disseminate the OCLC Principles of Cooperation and any other educational materials provided by OCLC. Susan will pass these suggestions along to staff for possible publishing in an upcoming TechNotes issue. Sheila added that OCLC could probably be most effective on this front by focusing on price incentives and credits. Maxine Brown stated that in interviewing for 3 open positions she was surprised to learn that some places "are not using OCLC for cataloging because they feel they can get the catalog records from cheaper (often free) sources and they don't want to be bothered with having to participate in ILL." Having said that she supported Sheila's comment about OCLC focusing on price incentives and credits. Denise Lomax hoped that "CatExpress" would become a reality adding that her understanding of this service is based on Susan's explanation at a past FAC meeting. þ Marcia Talley asked, "Under Phyllis Spies session, 14 items are mentioned. Are any of these of special concern to FEDLINK libraries? How can federal libraries assist OCLC with these specific concerns?" Sheila Riley responded by saying that SIL would be interested most in nos.1-2 (OCLC plans for CORC and its relationship to WorldCat) and nos. 5-7 (all things digital). She felt that FEDLINK libraries are engaged in the former as CORC participants and that Federal libraries could probably contribute to a clearinghouse on best digital practices. 3. Customer Service Report - Ruby Thomas, FEDLINK Member Services Coordinator Ruby stated that "After careful review of the membership recommendations for ways to improve customer service, the FEDLINK program managers have agreed to establish several customer service initiatives for FY99." She asked the FAC to review the attachment of the customer service article published in Technotes identifying the FY99 initiatives and to comment. Maxine Brown and Sheila Riley thought the report contained excellent initiatives and look forward to progress reports. Milton MeGee forwarded a message from Carla Pomager from Redstone Scientific Information Center which stated, " I want to emphasize the importance of reducing the number of signatures required to establish an interagency agreement (IAG). The person at our command authorized to sign IAGs is the Director of the Laboratory. Since our library does not send all the money at the beginning of the fiscal year (because it does not come to us all at once), we must bother the Director of the Laboratory every time we want to transfer more money. It would be helpful to us if once the IAG is signed, that only the fund/certification officer's signature would be needed on the amendments." Denise Lomax stated, " The FEDLINK Customer Service Goals for FY2000 reveal a lot of good work on the part of Ruby and her committee. The eleven priorities are quite focused and if all are do-able and implemented, we will certainly have a sharper, highly efficient and responsive organization for the new millennium." She added though that her experience has been that she receives the FEDLINK statements usually months after the time that expenditures are made and wondered 1) if this is covered in one of the eleven priorities, or 2) would this improve once FEDLINK has its new financial system in place. 4. Pricing Research Status - Susan Tarr, FLICC Executive Director Susan Tarr reported that the following libraries or networks offered to provide data on the specified vendors: Lexis-Nexis--PTO, FCA, Treasury, Alliance of Networks; DIALOG--PTO, FCA, INCOLSA; Westlaw--FCA, Treasury; UMI--Labor, Bureau of Prisons, Smithsonian, Treasury; Legi-Slate--Treasury; Chem Abstracts--PTO; IHS Personnet--Treasury; Congressional Quarterly Treasury; NewsEdge--Treasury; Ovid Technologies--NIH, Smithsonian, INCOLSA; LRP Publications--Treasury. FEDLINK staff will following up with the identified contact persons over the next few weeks as they prepare for negotiations. Denise Lomax thought we needed more federal libraries to share their pricing information for this research effort and suggested that another appeal on the listserv or direct approaches to individuals on the FEB, FAC, and FLICC working groups. Susan will modify this report and send it to the IT Working Group and the FEB to encourage members of those groups to offer their information. [Done 6/18/99] Susan asked the FAC to tell her which of the following factors is the most important in deciding whether to use the FEDLINK contract or to go directly to a vendor for an online service: Cost; Simplicity of ordering process; Prompt vendor payment by in-house or FEDLINK financial service; Access to sales representative; Clearly presented pricing scheme; Well developed conditions and terms in case of disputes; Assistance in case of disputes; or Other. Denise Lomax stated, "As a small library, cost is always a major factor in determining what products and services we can acquire. However, as for FEDLINK in particular, providing assistance with 'resolving disputes' or addressing issues of 'lack of service' are just as important as cost. A vendor is likely to be more responsive when there is more to lose and small libraries just don't have the dollars and customer base to apply pressure when it gets to that point." Sheila Riley said cost and simplicity of ordering process are SIL's main concerns. SIL Acquisitions doesn't generally use contract services unless they absolutely must and they don't generally tend towards FEDLINK for services because this adds another party to the deal, another layer of complication to the process. Carla Pomager said that the most important thing to her is 'simplicity of the ordering process' even if the cost (with the additional FEDLINK charges)is more. She cited their use of FEDLINK for serials procurement as the best example but went on to say, "However, if the service is a high-cost item that a simple local contract will handle, we may go straight to the vendor to check their direct price and may save money, since we do not have to pay our local procurement people. Our budget is being cut every year, and we need to shop for the best deals." 5. Technical Processing BOA Renewal - Discussion Leader: Milton MeGee, FEDLINK Coordinator Maxine Brown said, "I would recommend renewing the BOA. I think the customer service aspect is critical. One new federal librarian I know who had never cataloged before, called Patti and received assistance that helped her get started." Carla Pomager stated that "we do not use OCLC's technical processing service", so she had no comments. Denise Lomax said, "I love the Technical Processing service. I have been able to get my original cataloging done, particularly videos." She found Patti Field's help to be valuable in the process of determining specifications and getting projects to the vendors. She finds it a "wonderful service for the small library that does not have a cataloger on staff." Sheila Riley did not know what is included in FEDLINK's technical processing services and asked for further clarification on this. Susan responded that, if the FAC is interested, they could do a briefing on TechProc Servs BOA at the next FAC meeting. The meeting adjourned Thursday, June 24 at 4:30 p.m. The next scheduled meeting of the FAC is July 22, 1999.