LITAC Meeting Notes
May 14, 2007

Members Present: Allan Barclay, Mark Beatty, Anita Evans, Peter Gilbert (left at noon), Leanne Hansen, Jeanne Higgins, Travis Jiskra (arrived at noon), Vibeke Lehmann, Judy Lyons, Cathy Markwiese, Ruth Ann Montgomery, Dawn Nordine, Stef Morrill (left at 11:30), Josh Ranger, Marilyn Rassmussen, Annette Smith, Stacy Stevens, James Trojanowski, Michael Tyree.

Members Absent: Jim Davis, Alan Engelbert

Staff Present: Bob Bocher, Sally Drew, Mary Clark, Martha Farley, Donna Steffen

The meeting was called to order at 10:00AM by Bob Bocher.

Review and approval of meeting notes from February 2007
Cathy Markwiese indicated her name was misspelled; and that her remarks referring to StoryCorps contained an inaccurate spelling on page 2 of the meeting notes. A motion to approve as corrected was made by Peter Gilbert with second by Jim Trojanowski.

Committee Work Schedule: Strategic Plan and Issue Papers
Drew handed out a written schedule for discussion by LITAC of the issue papers currently on the table through May 2008. She added committee members' names as suggestions for people to review or work on the various issues. Drew asked if we really still needed the Electronic Collections paper as many of those issues will be included in the future papers on Wisconsin Heritage Online and Digital Archive. The general consensus was that we don't need the separate electronic collections paper.

Stef Morrill commented that her name is included on the issue paper for Consumer-Driven Digital Products. She is happy to work on that paper, but notes that she won't be on LITAC after the October meeting. Allan Barclay asked to be added to BadgerLink paper.

There was general consensus that the schedule of issue papers is acceptable.

Information Literacy Issue Paper
Donna Steffen reviewed the Information Literacy Paper. She and Annette Smith drafted this issue paper. The paper discussed information literacy in different segments of the library community: K12, the academic environment, and public libraries.

K12 & academic. Anita Evans indicated that it should include ACRL standards. Leanne Hanson agreed. Steffen asked one of them to find the information and help her integrate it into the paper. Those standards might be changing shortly as well. Wisconsin is establishing a state timeline for standards like our technology standards (i.e. not core standards). But they may be integrated into the other content core standards, so they will be assessed.

Cathy Markwiese asked what is being referred to as "Power standards." Steffen indicated that Power Standards are synonymous with Core Standards.

Smith suggested that this Information Literacy paper should come back to LITAC in 2008 because of the changes that are in the works.

Issues & Recommendations: Issue 1. Steffen and Smith indicated that they would like to get some options and recommendations on best practices for cross-library programs or continuity between K12, public libraries & academics.

Markwiese commented that in public libraries, a lot of Information Literacy is related to serving the lifelong learner. So in public libraries it should touch on standards of bibliographic instruction, general computer classes, email classes, etc. There is always the struggle between showing people how to do something or doing it for them.

Dawn Nordine thought that libraries should be teaching the skills around how to collaborate and communicate with others. Schools provide parents with after school classes on email, etc. School staff need to make sure students and adults have lifelong computer skills--email, webconferencing, etc. An example of having to fill out applications online. Libraries should be seen as a place to learn those skills.

Smith commented on the need for privacy and safety in the schools. Schools block internet access for valid reasons, but the balance has been lost. Markwiese commented that in Milwaukee, the Pick&Save grocery store is running classes to teach people how to fill out their online applications. Ruthann Montgomery indicated that holding classes in the library is very important at public libraries; as is having enough computers for the public to use. Hansen mentioned that at the academic level it is a continuum; they are thinking more about teaching the critical thinking in applying those skills, rather than how to do a task. Trojanowski agreed that there was an extent to which the continuum needs to happen at the public library, because people are all at varying levels of expertise.

Smith questioned, "How do we as a library community put out suggestions or plans to guide libraries to help them know what their role is in this effort." What can LITAC suggest to help libraries work together in this effort. Libraries and schools don't have the staff to do these things and she suggested that LITAC recommend actions so that there is emphasis and reason for libraries to continue to dedicate staff to this goal. Montgomery reiterated that the key word is "community" so that there is cross training.

Drew summarized that the group was indicating that LITAC should come up with the best reasons for collaborating cross-library on information literacy initiatives; and that LITAC should outline the roles of various types of libraries and what they are already doing; and also indicate a model for how different types of libraries can work together. Steffen further suggested that the group come up with a LITAC definition of information literacy and look at the various types of libraries and indicate some expectations of what should happen at those levels.

Stef Morrill expressed that there also needs to be a component of training for the public library staffs; and how to incorporate and encourage information literacy without making it mandated. She indicated that she would like to see staff trained on how to learn new software programs, not just on a specific piece of software. Markwiese said that staff has to recognize that it is, in fact, the librarian's role to take the time to help patrons learn how to use the software.

Josh Ranger suggested that since LITAC is talking about a best practices document, LITAC members can take the liberty of making bold suggestions. As a bold suggestion, LITAC should be at the point of recommending that libraries have an "information literacy" librarian on the staff and the person should have as part of their job description to train & be on top of these information literacy issues. This is a new role that needs to be put forward. This recommendation could also go to library schools to encourage them to teach this so that people can get these information literacy jobs when they get out. Hansen said that LITAC should be looking for these collaborative partnerships not just with libraries, but with literacy councils and other interested groups as well. Judy Lyons agreed that we need to be less territorial and work with other non-library partners.

Regarding whether or not there is sufficient staff available to achieve these goals, Morrill suggested that LITAC be really careful with any language or requirements it might place. Library staff already have too much to do, and often don't have the technical skills. Markwiese reiterated that someone on the staffs should be authorized to take the point for a given library, but Information Literacy is really every librarian's responsibility. Library staff will always need to use those "teachable moments" in order for this to be effective. Morrill recounted a story where she interacted with some academic professors who were puzzled by librarians getting interested in information literacy, since academic staff had been doing it for some time. We might need to be aware that academic faculty also see this as their role. Hansen agreed that we would need the "buy-in" from the various camps.

Ranger said that maybe we do need to shout this and get rid of our old "bibliographic instruction" term and use Information Literacy. This could be seen as a renewed opportunity to change the way people think about librarians. Smith commented that the definition is very important. Sometimes faculty believe they are teaching information literacy, but they are not - they are just teaching Google.

Drew cautioned that we need to be careful with new words. We want to be sure that this is seen as a new concept, not just a cosmetic term change. This could be a good thing to include in our best practice document. Gilbert also thought that this PR aspect is important. Information Literacy is a buzzword. We should try not to talk about it that way. Rather we should talk about research skills. There should be a conflation between information literacy and technology - librarians understand this, but others may not understand how these things work together. We have to be flexible with the terminology and how to pitch it.

Lyons remembered that years ago, some public library systems addressed multi-type activity. This kind of cooperation should be encouraged to happen again. Just from the standpoint of using the same terminology and concepts. Trojanowksi added that he is teaching these skills to other librarians, so he sees the need for information literacy. If the people that we are relying on to teach this, don't have the skills themselves, then there is a bigger problem.

Steffen wondered if one of the best practices would entail identifying what needs to be developed at each level. We can't force this on any group – it has to be recommendations of what is the step beyond those basic skills. Many of our media specialists are not trained or supported as part of the information team in their schools. Marilyn Rassmussen said that schools are now hiring "literacy coaches" and they do not include librarians or media specialists among that group.

Markwiese commented that there are two different areas of technology. Kids in schools know the technology but don't have the skills to evaluate the content; while older people may have the critical thinking skills, but don't know the technology.

Nordine asked where library staffs can go to pick up these skills. Is there a network where they are provided this training that everyone has access to? Not everyone goes to college or has access to formal academic training. Trojanowski added that in order to recertify, directors need 100 contact hours per 5 years; but that is only for directors, not other staff. When classes are offered, they aren't always well attended. Some people are bored with the topic or they think they know the subject. Nordine suggested that perhaps the bold thing is to require a certain minimal level of training. Steffen thought that we could develop a guide to recommend course content, or sequence; or an outline "curriculum" for areas or pieces. Hansen agreed with this approach, but indicated that we need to include why this is important.

Evans expressed the need to still distinguish academic libraries concerns from public library concerns because the audience is so different. In academics, they have a captive audience, but public libraries have to build it into the formal structures.

Ranger expressed his opinion that the only way to get universities to buy into the promotion of information literacy would be through competition. You have to do the public relations work outside in order to get students and faculty to demand it before the universities will pay attention.

Trojanowski summarized the needs as follows: We need an Information Literacy definition; we need to promote it; we need to make sure staff is literate; we need to identify how different libraries can work together; and then also how to recognize differences and use those differences; and we need to identify ways to ensure adequate staff training.

Bocher spoke of the Gates Foundation state library partnership workshops. The directors did a survey in relationship to sustaining technology. Wisconsin libraries are small with few FTE's so they can't get to patron training. He hopes that Gates Foundation will come up with more money for this type of training.

Smith wondered if LITAC could ask for funding to move toward some of these recommendations, which are broadly defined as public even though they cross all type of libraries. Can we indicate to the Gates people that this isn't just a public library issue?

Drew suggested that Gates hasn't funded computers or allowed other library staff to attend the public library workshops, but maybe we can get them to understand that training is essential to for all types of library staff for the concept to work.

Morrill added that it was her hope that along with a new curriculum that will be basic core competencies (e.g. keyboarding).

Steffen thanked the group for their discussion and comments, and asked that if they had more thoughts, to send them on to the Division. We'll keep working on this and come back to LITAC with more information.

Nordine indicated that she would like to help work on this paper.

Interlibrary Loan Background Paper
Drew introduced the Interlibrary Loan Background Paper. This paper has been around for a long time. All of the issues came from past committees. This is the second time it is coming up for review and she left in the previous recommendations. Morrill indicated that she felt some of the issues were non-technical and shouldn't be dealt with by LITAC.

Trojanowski asked how this paper dovetails with what COLAND is undertaking. Part of his concern is that we can get multiple groups working on the same issue and maybe LITAC could invite someone from COLAND to attend a LITAC meeting. He felt that after the last SRLAAW meeting, it seemed that we were all discussing the same things.

Drew said that she had given this paper to COLAND as background. COLAND is looking at a large visioning process for the future. They are thinking that we should do an event/conference every 10 years. They also want to review resource sharing and whether we made the right decisions on WISCAT. They are just beginning to think about these issues and they have a schedule of learning activities for the next 4-5 meetings to gather information. Then they are looking to have a larger conference in 2008 or 2009. The role that LITAC could play might be to give COLAND advice about what direction they should take. LITAC might also help by discussing and offering to COLAND what they want to see in a conference.

Bocher added that COLAND will meet two more times before LITAC meets again. We may be able to invite someone from COLAND to the October LITAC meeting to give an update. COLAND has indicated that they do not just want to talk about resource sharing, but rather about the bigger picture of what libraries should be. LITAC could send someone to their meeting as well. Or perhaps the two groups could have a joint meeting. Drew said that COLAND is also thinking of asking for help from other groups as well to put on this conference.

Mark Beatty mentioned there is a national grassroots group (rethinkingresourcesharing.org) that is looking at rethinking resource sharing. They want to re-examine everything from the patron point of view. Some interesting ideas are coming out of that group headed by Brenda Bailey Hayner of Colorado. They are also including most of the major vendor community in their discussions. We should be aware of that movement as we are planning our future. Drew suggested that maybe we should bring some of those documents back to LITAC. Trojanowski thought that might help us to move the ILL paper from what is now - into what is the ideal situation (much like the discussion we just had around information literacy).

Drew then asked the LITAC committee to look at the Interlibrary Loan Paper issue statements and determine if any can be moved off the table for now. Markwiese suggested that if we are talking about electronic delivery then we should talk about copyright issues and licensing as well with this paper.

Drew made a correction on page 3 of the paper to bring the figures on universal borrowing up-to-date. She is also still working on the OCLC numbers. Gilbert pointed out an error on the front page. Under organizational structure, WiLS should be Wisconsin Library Services. Also a question on last line under definition n p.1. has extra words "as interlibrary loan."

Jeanne Higgins mentioned the difficulty in their having to keep manual statistics now because they are getting requests outside of the AGent system. They are getting incoming ILL requests via email & other methods. Small libraries are just now starting to see an increase in getting requests from outside of AGent. She wondered if this is because of WorldCat, the patrons' attitude of "I want it now," or because libraries are now using different ILL systems. Drew acknowledged these difficulties and said that the challenge is how to make the systems work together, and part of that difficulty is to collect statistics across the different systems.

Gilbert commented that the ILL background paper was a good summary of what is. Hansen wondered how this paper refers back to the new ILL guidelines. They should be complimentary. Drew reiterated that this paper "is what is." The paper needs to be accurate, but suggested that LITAC could also reframe it around some of the bigger issues and trends as they develop. Vibeke Lehmann commented that some of these issues have been issues for quite a long time. We have worked on them and made progress, but they are still with us, and still need to still be on the table.

Trojanowski commented on recommendation #4 (What needs to be done to facilitate interlibrary loan by patrons?). He wondered if there is a statewide consensus that we should be encouraging ILL by patrons; and wondered if not, should we broaden the question "to ask is it desirable and if so, what can be done to facilitate it." Markwiese said that the reason many public libraries do not like the idea of patron-initiated requesting is that patrons make so many mistakes when placing requests.

Beatty reminded the group that the national Rethinking Resource Sharing group would say that if the patron identifies something they want - the system should recognize that they own it and get it. Patron expectations are raised from local public library system successes and from WorldCat directing patrons to local libraries.

BadgerLink Issue Paper
Drew presented the BadgerLink paper and indicated LITAC had looked at this paper last time and requested some changes. Division staff made those changes and are now bringing the paper back. She asked if LITAC considered it finished or if there were more things that needed to be addressed in this paper.

Markwiese wondered if in discussing the need for authentication of users, we might want to specifically mention the AOL and other national providers situation and why that is a specific problem.

Barclay indicated that he would like to see BadgerLink taken even further, for example with plug-ins or creating toolbars, or getting it into browsers or tagged search sites like Del.icio.us. He also thought that we should expand talk about promoting it outside of libraries. Perhaps there could be a mechanism to brainstorm or think about this outside of the actual LITAC meeting. He suggested making it a more peer-reviewed site to allow people to review the site periodically and make suggestions. There also needs to be a provision for suggesting new things. Even though we don't have money to add more full-text resources at this time, what about suggesting non-database tools or free things? Emphasis on BadgerLink is educational, business, government and medical. Drew commented that we also had a marketing plan, which might tie into that sort of activity, but what Allan is talking about goes beyond marketing to functionality.

Markwiese felt that BadgerLink itself is just the doorway. The resources within are definitely dynamic, and it can be challenging to add a lot of free links. Milwaukee has had experience with this. Lyons suggested that we could add an email link so people can request additions to the page. That could also be a PR method, and it would serve to let people know that there is someone on the other end to listen to their suggestions. Markwiese thought this could be useful but cautioned that they have this type of email link in Milwaukee and their site gets a lot of requests from vendors who want them to add their site to their portal. Drew told the group that we could try to set up a feedback or suggestion mechanism and try not to let it get out of hand.

Beatty brought up the references to "BadgerCard" in paper. He asked if we still want this in there? It has no status right now. He wondered if there was any hope of ever getting this.

Trojanowski reminded the group that we are focused on the ideal in these papers, not only looking at what can be done right now? He indicated that he would be inclined to leave it in as an ideal.

ToolKit and Marketing efforts
Drew presented information on the current effort to create a parents/teachers toolkit for BadgerLink. This might include printed materials, but we also visualize having something on the website. In terms of publishing, there are two kinds of things we are looking at. A group is developing two sets of resource cards. One is designed for parents to help their kids; the other set is designed for kids to use - scavenger hunt style. This will come out of Gates funding, so it is only for public libraries at this time, and it could also be a summer library program handout. The Division has hired two people to come up with questions on 20 sets of cards; and has a printed guide aimed at libraries giving them ideas on how to promote BadgerLink.

Trojanowski said that this effort will get more buy-in from public libraries if they can add their library name to it; and if it is easy to do. Drew described a recent handout that was created describing how to link to various online services. It is going to be added to BadgerLink page and also will be in Channel.

LSTA Report on Future Categories
Bocher referred to a handout in order to update the group in relation to the 2008 LSTA grant process. Previously LITAC had given feedback on suggestions for categories. Here is what the LSTA Advisory Committee came up with:

Public Library System Technology Projects. This category has been popular because it is non-competitive. Many systems have used it to address bandwidth issues.

Merging Shared Integrated Library Systems. Eighty-five percent of the state's 388 public libraries are in shared integrated library systems. This category will allow systems that have multiple systems (i.e. Indianhead) to merge those systems together and for systems where there is a resource library to be added to the main shared system (i.e. Nicolet/OWLS).

Wireless Internet Access. This is a new category. Wisconsin libraries are behind the 57-58% of libraries nationwide that provide wireless Internet access in the library. Wisconsin's percentage is more like 45%. We hope to get up to 75% figure with the help of this new grant category. Markwiese indicated that she likes this category, as it really gets the service out to the public. Bocher also mentioned that this helps libraries because some libraries are not able to add another workstation, but wireless really allows libraries to increase access.

Innovative use of Technology. This is a new category. We have long had requests to add a category for innovative uses, where the libraries or systems themselves have to identify what is innovative to them.

Shared Integrated Library Systems for Schools. This will fund a study to look at what the issues are in creating shared systems for schools, how much does it cost, what are the policy implications, etc.

Evans asked how the amount to put in various categories is determined. Bocher indicated that for new categories, we go by what we think the need is, but in others it's just a guess or estimate. For some categories, we have had them around for a long time, so there is a track record.

Digitization - Local Resources. This category is continuing at the past level and under the same circumstances. Libraries will be working with University of Wisconsin-Madison to scan selected materials, create metadata and support the digitized collections on the web. The University of Wisconsin-Madison wants keep the number of grants at 6-8, so they can work closely with the participants. Libraries that have taken part in the past indicated that they have learned a lot. Some have come back for a second grant and some have gone out on their own to carry out digitization projects. Libraries that have already received two individual grants are not eligible in 2008.

Ranger reminded the group that one thing LITAC had discussed before was to try to include more types of formats. He felt that the current grant language looked like it was mostly about print resources, and seems to not promote other formats. Drew indicated that she will look at this language for next time, but that different formats were being digitized so that the intent was not just print materials. All of these projects will be able to be harvested and accessible by Wisconsin Heritage Online (WHO).

Drew indicated that LSTA did discuss whether we would open this up to working outside of the UW service, but weren't prepared at this time to come up with wider criteria for what would be eligible. That option may still be on the table for the future.

Virtual Reference Service. Drew had been asked to come in with a phase-out plan with some idea of what would be needed for libraries to pick up the cost of virtual reference. She and Kathy Schneider (WiLS) devised a proposal to phase out LSTA funding after three years. The LSTA committee decided not to phase out LSTA funding. LSTA will pay for the full cost of the fee to OCLC for the 24-7 service for another year. Libraries that are not contributing staff still get to use the logo on their website and allow their patrons to use the virtual reference service.

Library Development Training Projects. This is a new category. This category will allow public libraries to bring in speakers for management training or motivational training, etc. It might continue for a while.

Statewide Visioning/Strategic Planning Conference. This category is a "placeholder" in case the Division needs conference money or pre-conference activities for the COLAND visioning process in 2008.

WISCAT. This is a continuing category. Vendor costs are down from the previous year by about $70,000; but there were some routine staff salary increases. We had asked for centralized federated searching to be added, but this was not recommended.

Federal Legislative Update

Handout

DOPA going nowhere

Net neutrality. Introduce - gone through a couple of committees, but hasn't passed the full house yet.

Broadband connectivity. We are behind other western countries. Especially in rural areas.

Internet stopping adults ..... intent is to deal with online predators. U.S. Atty. Gen can tell ISPs that they have to keep 2 years worth of data.

Communication --- aimed at telephony market. Also applies to internet as well at ISPs network to facilitate.

Patriot Act reauthorized last year. Libraries got nothing from this. Number of national security letters has increased significantly.

Child Online Protection Act. Still unconstitutional.

Next meeting date: October 12, 2007

Meeting notes compiled by Sally Drew

For questions about this information, contact Sally J. Drew (608) 224-6161

Last updated on 2/25/2008 12:28:32 PM