Electronic Information Working Group
Minutes of March 25, 2003

Minutes from the previous meeting were corrected and are is attached to this report.

I. Budget update.(Beverly Shirley)

I A. News from the field.

Dowdey attended a FronterasTek (a group of border schools that received TIF funds) meeting. Members are organizing to continue that support. A representative from SACS who was present commented that TexShare databases made it possible for those schools to meet SACS accreditation requirements. Alpine, Presidio, Fort Davis and Marfa were among places named.

Pinedaattended a library meeting and heard the director of the medical school in that region talk about the importance of the TexShare databases to his program.

Phillips reported that libraries at UT Austin will likely include staff layoffs to meet a budget cut of $1 million for FY04. The collections budget may be impacted as well.

 Gaines told the group that the TLC funding was not in the appropriations bill. The legislators were not as familiar with the benefits of that program as they are with TexShare. TLC needs our support. He also said that promotional efforts with many libraries are not working. The group offered the opinion that the problem is one of time rather than awareness and training. Staff are overloaded already, and promoting the databases is just one more thing to do.

Testsaid they are making headway for remote access at Abilene Public.

Wingfield said that UT Arlington and Arlington Public are pairing librarians to talk to librarians and principals in the Arlington Independent School District to promote their services to public schools. These services include TexShare Cards, TexShare databases and training for using the databases.

II. Criteria for Selecting Databases Review

• User Survey results
• statistics on database use
• best value
• recommendations of EIWG regarding balance, vendor reliability, percent of full-text documents and overlap of journal coverage

EIWG agreed that “Our first priority is a balanced collection that meets the needs of our various constituencies. With the understanding that budget constraints may make this difficult, the Committee will give priority to including at least one of the top two choices of each constituency (public, 4-year academic, 2-year academic, and medical libraries) in our final recommendation.”

III A.  List of databases and renewal pricing

EIWG recommends negotiating OVID port costs through TexShare, even though the costs will be paid by the participating libraries rather than by TexShare. Levy will investigate costs and share the information with EIWG.

The EIWG recommends renewing the following Tier1 databases:

• EBSCO   
• Gale             
• OCLC         
• Stat!Ref          
• TDNet              
• ProQuest Access to previously purchased databases
• HeritageQuest                 
• Archives USA                    

Although the total cost of these databases is slightly more than we have available, we hope to negotiate the amount needed to purchase all Tier1 databases.

We then identified five resources as potential renewals for the same period if TSLAC can get Commission approval for these at the same time as the Tier1 renewal list, contingent on funding. We ask the TexShare Advisory Board to approve the Tier2 databases in the event funds become available.

• NetLibrary renewals          
• ELibrary            
• Books in Print 
• Twaynes             
• Scribners            

The EIWG does not recommend renewal of

• Ulrich’s 
• Groliers

Database Justifications 3/25/03

*Ebsco

• High usage across the board
• Multi-disciplinary
• Common interface
• Most full text
• Most scholarly journals
• Ebsco linking options
• High priority across the board
• Medical databases available - Health Source Nursing/Academic
• Content for all ages/levels of computer literacy

*excluding Wilson Applied Science and Technology and Salud Para Todos because of low usage for both, Wilson is abstracts only, and both are lowest priorities of all databases

**Gale

• High usage across the board
• Common interface
• Scholarly journals
• Generous full text
• High priority across the board
• Medical databases available - Health Reference Center for both consumer and professionals
• Content for all ages/levels of computer literacy
• Unique literature, newspaper and business databases
• Spanish language content (more greatly used)
• Common shared databases with Texas Library Connection

**excluding Scribners and Twaynes because of low ranking and low usage

OCLC

• High ranking
• High usage
• Unique databases, i.e. WorldCat, PapersFirst, ArticleFirst
• Important for InterLibrary Loan utility

Stat-Ref

• Unique medical content
• All full text
• Serves consumers and professionals
• Direct impact for patient care and medical education
• Top ranked by medical libraries

TDNet

• Maximizes access to full text journals in all databases
• Makes every other journal database more usable and valuable

ProQuest Access

• Only means to provide access to currently owned databases
• Sanborn Maps
• English poetry
• American poetry

HeritageQuest

• Unique content
• Rated highly with public libraries
• High usage statistics in public libraries

***Archives USA

• Supplements HeritageQuest content
• Academic tool for finding primary historical sources
• Unique content
• Good value

*** Will be deleted if necessary due to budget considerations

Databases to be considered if/when additional funds become available:

netLibrary

Continued access to multiple copies of current, highly used items

(e-books)

*eLibrary

Radio and television transcripts unique to this database

Highly used in community college and public libraries

Highly rated in community college and public libraries

Easy to use interface

*much content duplicated in higher priority databases

**Books-in-Print

Highly rated across the board

Useful librarian's tool

**committee prefers to concentrate available money on public use resources

Twaynes

Supplements Literature Resource Center content

Full text

Scribners

Supplements Literature Resource Center content

Committee chose not to renew:

Ulrichs

Low rankings, low use

Grolier

Low rankings

Low usage

Encyclopedia duplicates resources in higher rated database  package

Less value for $ spent

III B. eBooks         

EIWG recommends that we purchase databases with the existing funds rather than expand the ebook collection. Because the database subscriptions are more time sensitive and labor intensive than ebooks, we recommend that the database subscriptions be placed first. EIWG suggested that we drop duplicate subscriptions on books more than three years old in subjects such as computers and medicine. Depending on funds later in the year, we will make further ebook purchases.

Linda Levy spoke for the clinical and medical librarians about content most useful to that stakeholder group. She recommended full-text databases over medical ebooks. StatRef was given a high priority in her discussions with other medical librarians. Linda also thought was reasonable to consider the medical databases provided by EBSCO and Gale as appropriate content for medical and clinical libraries.

III C. Database Use Statistics

EIWG reviewed use statistics as part of their recommendations for subscriptions.

See at http://www.texshare.edu/memberinfo/statistics/databasestats/Stats2003.htm

IV. Legislative News

The group reviewed pending legislation that will impact library funding.

Meeting adjourned at 3:15pm.

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Corrected Minutes of the February 6, 2003 EIWG

Electronic Information Working Group

Minutes from February 6, 2003

The discussion was not in agenda order, but we covered most of the items during the meeting. The published agenda is repeated at the end of the comments if you wish to refer to it.

Peggy Rudd visited with the committee and said the amount budgeted for databases can be spent for FY04 or perhaps it can be spread over 26 months to extend databases through August 31, 2005. (The existing database subscriptions run from July1-June 30) There is a clause in the legislation that says funds can be prepaid if it saves the state money. TSLAC is trying to verify whether the database funds can be spent for prepaid services, and Rudd said they would know soon - in a couple of weeks. The determination was not made about whether to stretch the money over two years or to use it for FY04 only, but the majority of EIWG members preferred to use the funds for FY04. A decision will be made when all the facts are known.

Decisions made at this meeting include:

• TexShare will not subsidize TexSelect products. More specifically, some libraries are subscribing to MLA and CINAHL databases from OVID. The subscribing members pay the full amount of the subscription among themselves and there is no cost to TexShare for the database subscriptions. However, in addition to the database costs, OVID charges for ports to access these databases. In the past, TexShare has paid the port charges. The decision was made to discontinue this practice for any TexSelect databases.

• TDNet and TDNet hosting will not be cut. This product is seen as a tool to help libraries manage the subscriptions in the databases to which we subscribe.

• NetLibrary books will be selected after the databases and the time lines are firm. EIWG made protecting the databases the highest priority.

• Some dated duplicate copies of ebooks will be dropped from netLibrary. TexShare purchases multiple copies of some ebooks. We no longer need duplicate copies of computer books, books on technology and medical books that are more than three years old. We will keep one original copy and cancel the duplicate copies as the books become dated. This may not be the case for literature and history books. We will ask NetLibrary to run some reports to help make appropriate decisions.

• Listing vendors on a web site that offer discounts to TexShare member libraries was tabled (Agenda item 8). Some members thought putting a list of vendors on the web would be helpful. Others thought this represented advertisement of the vendors and implied a TexShare recommendation. No decision was made, and the question may be considered at a later time. It was the general concensus that we had more important issues to address at this time.

• Which databases to keep was the major decision of the day. EIWG decided to use four criteria in making the final decisions.
• The results of a user survey (see below)
• Statistics on database use
• Best Value
• The recommendations of EIWG regarding balance, vendor reliability, percent of full-text documents and overlap of journal coverage.

• The Survey of Members
• One survey will be accepted from each TexShare member library
• It will list every database, including subsets of databases. Subsets will be shown as “included with” the subscription for which we are charged
• An asterisk will mark the databases subscribed by the Texas Library Connection (In the course of creating the User Survey, this was determined to be confusing, and TLC databases were not marked)
• Members will be asked to rank their top choices from 1-10, with 1 being highest
• OCLC Base will be shown as a single item for purchase (this decision did not reach the group creating the User Survey)
• The name of the institution is a required field
• The name and contact information of the person completing the survey is a required field
• The tier of the institution (as reflected in the cost avoidance schedule) is a required field. Explanation will be on the survey. There is one addition to the tiers – one for medical libraries. Currently medical schools are included in the academic tiers. We want to be able to sort the medical school surveys separately. (Breakout responses by tire of institution did not reach EIWG – only averages)
• The survey will be put on the web
• It will be available for a minimum of two weeks (14 days)

Information shared at the meeting

Beverly Shirley talked about the sources of the funds in the budget. She briefly discussed the possibility of a small fee to participate in the databases. A decision regarding fees has not been made. The survey was exploratory only.

Peggy Rudd talked about ZLOT. The RFP for the resource discovery software is out. In response to a question about whether that money could be diverted to pay for databases, Rudd said that while it is not yet committed, she thinks we should continue this part of ZLOT. The money must be used during the current year.

Todd Peters provided statistics for ebook usage.

Bob Gaines brought a survey results that he did with involving libraries that have applied to use TSLAC’s Gateway to access the databases. 

Published Agenda for the Meeting

1. Budget

1a. EIWG member comments of the state budget cuts to their libraries

2. Review ways we can save money within the database program

A.  Eliminate duplicate copies of ebooks (except the most heavily used)

B. Eliminate subsidized portion of OVID in TexSelect program

C. Develop methods for soliciting input from membership on potential cuts.

3. Discuss probable cuts to the program

A. Decide which databases must be kept; which can be let go

B. ebook statistics and possible purchases

a.Use carry funds for medical ebooks?

b.See item 2A above for this discussion

c.Review suggestions from patrons

D.Database use statistics (in light of possible cuts)

http://www.texshare.edu/memberinfo/statistics/databasestats/Stats2003.htm

Lunch

4. Remote use statistics & Bob Gaines’ study (Jay’s report & Bob’s report)

5.Update on ZLOT project (Beverly Shirley will review program & budget)

6. Legislative TIF news

 Break

7. TDNet  (implemented by UofH, Rice, Trinity, Stephen F Austin)

8. Special offers from non-TexShare vendors

A.Pros/Cons

B.Review Beverley’s suggestions