TexShare Advisory Board Meeting
Texas State Library and Archives Commission
1201 Brazos, Room 314
April 22, 2005
1. Ms. Rudd introduced Commission Chairman Pickett.
Chairman Pickett thanked the TexShare Advisory Board (TSAB)
for their commitment to libraries in Texas, and reinforced
importance of TexShare
2. Approved minutes from Jan. 28, 2005 meeting
3. No public comment
4. Legislative Update: Rudd reported on
status of funding requests before the legislature. TSLAC will
send an email to TSAB members that can be passed onto their
legislators. Also, the Texas Library Association (TLA) has
a one page document related to funding.
5. Strategic Plan Issues:
a. Vision & mission discussion:
Discussion of persons not served by any public library,
funding for public libraries, Loan Star Libraries grants,
and the role of TexShare in providing service to persons
not served by any public library. The TexShare program will
continue to focus on service through libraries, but will
also explore alternatives.
b. Relationship vis a vis other library consortia:
Issue (a) How do we expand the variety
of databases offered through TexShare? Discussion of the
need to give guidance to the Electronic Information Working
Group (EIWG) regarding TexSelect database program and inter-consortial
agreements. Shirley asked for a vision of what the outcome
of a service to track library consortia should be. Shirley
asked where does the board want TSLAC to go in regards to
TexSelect. Anderson suggested that smaller groups could
negotiate database prices. Shirley asked if Amigos would
be able to assist sub-groups in getting resources. Juergens
replied that Amigos is used to helping subgroups and advising
libraries to join subgroups.
Issue (c) To what extent should TexShare
act as a “clearinghouse” to bring together libraries
that want to purchase particular databases? Avila and Waukechon
reported on TexZine. It is a regular update service of announcements
from database vendors. There was discussion of how small
consortia can work together to negotiate better prices from
vendors. Two concrete suggestions emerged: (1) A working
group could be appointed to identify consortia to partner
with TexShare. (2) A Web application could be used to track
potential partners and the databases for which they have
consortial contracts. TSLAC will work with Amigos to develop
a prototype Web application and present something back to
the board.
Issue (d) What will be the nature of a
partnership with K-12 libraries? K-12 schools vary greatly
in their size and resources. More information is needed
about the K-12 infrastructure. TEA no longer has a technology
department and is no longer a source of information about
K-12 database needs. It is not clear what K-12 schools expect
from TexShare besides database services. The board believes
that there needs to be a meeting with K-12 stakeholders
to facilitate a process for integration of the K-12 community
into the database group-purchasing program. There was consensus
that K-12 school libraries needed to have representatives
present at meetings of the Advisory Board.
Issues (b&f) Should TexShare restructure
the database service to provide more of a “cafeteria
plan” whereby libraries are presented with a list
of databases from which to choose rather than a pre-set
core? Do the benefits of a single core set of databases
outweigh the benefits of having database cores targeted
by audience (e.g. public, academic, medical)? After discussion
the board determined that TexShare should continue to be
committed to a common core, but take into account interests
of various segments.
Issue (e) What will be the options for
libraries to continue to get databases in the future in
case of reduced funding? Discussion of increasing fees for
databases. EIWG can poll TexShare libraries on the subject.
6. Reviewed dates for future meetings – next
meeting is July 8, 2005 and the fall meeting will be Sept.
30, 2005. The rest of the year’s meetings will be decided
early in FY06.
7. Sunset Focus Group: Seidenberg (Reporting
for Pickett) -- Pickett visited Representative Pitts. She
told him our priority was money for TexShare. Pitts told his
aid to move it up on the priority list. Ms. Picket also visited
Representative Gattis and Senator Whitmire. Need to send one
page summary regarding TexShare database needs to these legislators’
offices.
Ms. Rudd explained that the basic question of the Sunset
Review in 2007 is “Does agency need to exist?”
A process is under way to answer that question. Self-evaluation
report is the first step. We need to identify policy issues
that need to be brought to table during review.
Responses to Focus Group Interview Questions:
1) What do you find most challenging in your library
with respect to resource sharing?
TexShare Advisory Board, strategic partners, and working
group membership include librarians from academic libraries,
public libraries, and medical libraries as well as persons
from the public. There were more representatives of academic
libraries at this focus group than from other membership
categories. While generally the responses are applicable
across membership type, one can see an “academic library”
focus.
TexShare members overwhelmingly find themselves challenged
by the demands of delivering information in an electronic
environment. They face the polar challenges of instructing
the unsophisticated electronic user while grappling with
the expectations of the technically astute generation that
wants everything delivered in full text immediately to their
homes or in their electronic classroom. Added to this, technology
becomes obsolete very quickly. Library budgets do not keep
up with these demands, and administrators are neither aware
of nor responsive to the difficulties generated by these
challenges.
Also mentioned was the difficulty of getting TexShare member
institutions to take action to put the ideology of resource
sharing into action.
2) What do you think are the strengths of the Texas
State Library and Archives Commission in the areas of library
resource sharing?
TexShare stakeholders felt that TSLAC’s role as a
central governmental agency with unprejudiced interest across
library type is a major asset. Because of this role, TSLAC
can bring diverse library types together and provide leadership
and advocacy for libraries in Texas. Its commission can
take on an important political advocacy role. In this role,
TSLAC has authority to develop standards and benchmarks
and to collect and compile data and statistics.
Participants also highlighted particular TSLAC programs
that are important to the Texas library community and to
Texans. These include consulting and continuing education
for librarians and library staff, preservation of historically
valuable documents, and a “provider of last resort”
for state government publications.
Finally, the Texas State Library and Archives Commission
benefits the state and its libraries financially. By brining
libraries together, it maximizes the buying power of tax
dollars, while assuring equitable access to information
between ”have” and “have not” library
communities. It is authorized to administer federal library
funds.
3) In your view, what could the Texas State Library
and Archives Commission improve upon in the area of library
resource sharing?
Group responses indicate three directives to TSLAC: (1)
Do more of the good things you are doing. (2) Expand into
new areas of resource sharing. (3) Do more outreach.
Participants want TSLAC to provide more resources and more
face-to-face training. They would like TSLAC to do more
regarding the preservation and conservation of documents.
TSLAC consulting activities need to expand to provide more
assistance to new libraries as well as to existing libraries
coping with new problems, such as changing demographics
(e.g. the growing Hispanic population, aging population,
rural population drain). Participants feel TSLAC should
redouble its partnership with other library agencies in
attracting a diverse workforce to the profession.
In addition to expanding current programs, group responses
indicate that there are new areas of resource sharing where
TSLAC could provide leadership and facilitation. There was
interest in expanding the central purchasing function currently
exercised with database purchases to other items, such as
computers (following the model established by the Gates
project), Spanish language books, etc. There was also interest
in TSLAC taking on a role in coordination of statewide digitization
efforts. Finally, there was support for strengthening library
development and resource sharing in a multi-type library
environment, especially regarding a more active role with
school libraries.
Perhaps the strongest message delivered by this focus group
was the need for more outreach regarding the valuable services
provided by TSLAC and Texas libraries. Specific suggestions
for outreach activities included traditional public awareness
materials such as public service announcements; more ambitious
events, like hosting a public awareness summit; and became
more creative with the suggestion of sponsoring a traveling
Internet café.
The group acknowledged the challenges TSLAC faces in taking
on more duties: the need for adequate resources and physical
facilities with a shrinking pot of financial resources and
the need for more staff and higher salaries.
4) Do we need to pursue further integration of
K-12 into TexShare programs? What about other types of libraries?
What are major issues to address regarding TexShare expansion?
TexShare stakeholders felt that, in the absence of any other
central, coordinating agency in charge of K-12 library support,
that TSLAC should integrate K-12 libraries into its library
development and resource sharing services. They acknowledged
that there would be some major hurdles in accomplishing
this integration. The K-12 audience may require specialized
electronic resources and specialized staff expertise. Decisions
would need to be made regarding representation of school
libraries on the advisory board. Because there is no funding
available for librarians to travel to advisory board meetings,
it may be difficult to find persons representing small or
rural school libraries. This problem is further exacerbated
by the trouble school librarians have taking time away from
the school library while school is in session. Additionally,
libraries of all types will face the issue of acceptance
– current TexShare members would need to accept the
new K-12 constituency and K-12 libraries would need to feel
that they “belong” to the TexShare community.
Group members suggested that TSLAC should explore ways to
partner with Education Service Centers to help work through
these and other obstacles to providing services to K-12
libraries.
The group acknowledged that other types of libraries have
expressed interest in joining TexShare, but did not discuss
details or priorities for involving other types of libraries
in the consortium.
5) What is the role of TSLAC in supporting the
Texas Heritage Digitization Initiative (THDI)?
Participants generally saw THDI as a logical next iteration
of TexTreasures. They see TSLAC as an appropriate host for
the activities of the initiative, with its organizational
“home” in TexShare. The group recognized that
the initiative involves entities, such as museums, that
are not authorized for TexShare membership and indicated
interest in exploring the concept of TexShare “affiliate”
participation for these groups in order to advance access
to special collections of informational materials through
digitization.
6) In your view, what are the pros and cons of
the merger of cultural heritage agencies in Texas?
PROS
- Economies of scale
- “Honeymoon”-might get more dollars
- TSLAC could take advantage of PR programs in place in
other agencies
CONS
- Loss of identity
- Loss of dedicated commission
- Increased competition for resources (could be pro)
- Loss of service/programs as agencies are merged
- Loss or degradation of service
- Loss of focus
- Culture shock
- Loss of volunteer support
7) Seidenberg explained the Sunset
Review process. In late Summer/early Fall TSLAC
will begin self-evaluation. We will be assigned staff from
the Sunset Commission. They will gather information “from
the field”. Sunset Commission will meet approximately
one year from now. After they meet, they will draft legislation
that will be presented in the next legislative session.
8. Meeting adjourned.
Present:
TexShare Advisory Board Members:
Nancy Anderson, Howard Payne University
Doug Ferrier, UT Brownsville/Texas Southmost College
Maurice Fortin, Angelo State University
Kathy Hoffman, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Martha Tandy, Weatherford College
Darryl Tocker, Tocker Foundation
Dennis Michaelis, McLennan Community College
Texas State Library and Archives Commission:
Mike Avila, Library Resource Sharing Division
Dave Hardy, Library Resource Sharing Division
Ann Mason, Library Resource Sharing Division
Peggy Rudd, Director and Librarian
Beverley Shirley, Library Resource Sharing Division
Russlene Waukechon, Library Resource Sharing Division
Ed Seidenberg, Assistant State Librarian
Sandy Pickett, Chairman of TSLAC
Working Group Chairs/Liaisons:
Greg Tramel, Montgomery County Memorial Library System
Suzanne McAnna, UT Austin
Lisa Loranc, Pasadena Public Library
JoAnne Hawkins, UT Austin
Strategic Partners:
Bonnie Juergens, Amigos Library Services
Guests:
Tom Moran, Austin Public Library
Joy Doss, ICUT
|
