Interlibrary Loan Implementation Task Force Minutes
April 17, 2008
2:00 pm – 3:45 pm
Dallas Public Library
1515 Young Street
Dallas West Room – Plaza Level/1st Floor

1. Welcome/Introductions

Sue Bennett opened the meeting. Those present:

Task Force Members
Linda Cavanaugh - Abilene Public Library
Judye Glick - Amigos Library Services
Catherine Hamer - University of Texas at Austin
Nancy Hill - West Texas Library System
Toni Lambert - Austin Public Library
Joan Morris - Amarillo Public Library
Tim Prather - Amigos Library Services
Randy Tibbits - Rice University
Richard Wood Texas - Tech University Health Sciences Center
Adam Wright - North Texas Regional Library System

TSLAC Liaisons
Sue Bennett - Library Resource Sharing
Chris Jowaisis - Library Development
Kevin Marsh - Library Resource Sharing
Beverley Shirley - Library Resource Sharing

Guests
Judith Hiott - Houston Public Library

Absent:
Mark Dolive - Weatherford College
Jerry Weathers - Texas State University - San Marcos
Mary McQueen - Wichita Falls Public Library

2. Goals of Study
The study provided goals that should be considered when evaluating the interlibrary loan program for Texas. Task Force discussed the question, “Are the goals laid out in the study our goals for Texas?”

Discussion started out with observations about the goals in general.

The group noted that some of the goals were more like tactics than goals.

How persons viewed ILL services in the past is not necessarily the vision of the future. Electronic databases could drive the ILL engine. Awareness of what is out there will increase demand. A new interlibrary loan program should be an even playing field for everyone and empowering the people of Texas

There may be some concern about universal participation. Libraries that had not done much ILL lending were concerned about lending items out when the new public library standards came out. They were willing to share among geographically close libraries. The Harrington Consortium has a good history of sharing materials. When the consortium was new, return postage was a fear to small libraries. Use of courier was significant in addressing this fear. Some small libraries become net lenders when their collections are exposed because of their unique collections.

The Task Force then discussed each goal. Staff at the state library will generate a document that rewords the goals based on the comments of the group. This new document will be reviewed and approved at the next meeting.

Patron-Centered

• This is the most important goal. Must get beyond our hang-ups and make patrons central need to show libraries this is what is best for patrons.
• It is important to encourage the practice of patron-initiated requesting, but not to require patron initiated requesting. Many patrons expect staff to submit requests for them.
• Patron validation is important but is a tactic rather than a goal.

Unmediated Requesting

• Patron centered is the goal. Unmediated request is a frequently effective tactic toward that goal that we will take very seriously as we move forward.
• Does this tactic just shift mediation from ILL staff to reference staff? Is it wise to shift mediation from ILL staff to reference staff?
• It is easier librarians to do mediation than to train everyone to do their own.
• Remove this as a goal; deal with it as a tactic.

Maximized Use of Technology

• Our goals are maximized use of technology, flexibility for ongoing change in technology. This is part of flexibility and should be added to that goal.

Enhanced Reciprocity and Increased Visibility of Library Holdings

• No Changes were discussed

Flexibility for ongoing change in technology and patron expectations

Shared funding responsibility at local, state, and federal levels.

• ILL is a shared responsibility and commitment. Local responsibility comes with hidden costs.

Encourages the view of resource sharing as a core service

• Part of this goal is equity in support for ILL in across all library types. If the legislature is serious about support, there will need to be funding, including a subsidy to make playing field equitable and even. The goal needs to be reworded.

Increased value of training and continuing education for library staff

• We need to reword training goal – we need both available training and participation in training. There needs to be a requirement that libraries participate in training to get buy-in beyond just training of technology. Training is a way to communicate our expectations for delivery of ILL services.
• It is through training much of the value of the service is passed.
• Information flow to kill the fear some librarians have about ILL.

Promotes Efficient Delivery

Several Items were brought up for future discussion:

• Copyright – How are we going to assure compliance? Is state going to provide technology?
• How does unmediated requesting, as a tactic rather than a goal, drive our “scenario – building?”
• How can we assure that shared funding responsibility is worked out in an equitable way at local and state levels?
• Deal with courier as a tactic in effective ILL delivery.

4. Charge and Timeline
Sue Bennett read the charge and timeline to the group. There was some concern over the timeline as the budget for the 2012-2013 biennium will have to be completed in 2010. Beverley Shirley clarified that the model selected for a new system would not need to be fully implemented statewide in the 2012-2013 biennium; but that we would need to have the model selected and the first phase of implementation identified and budgeted for that biennium.

5. Chairs
Adam Wright and Richard Wood agreed to serve as the co-chairs for the group.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 pm.