Cooperation Today

I don’t have any problems with this document.
The only comment I have is that it is very hard to get another library to pay for a book that it’s patron has lost. I have three lost through oclc that I cannot get them to pay for or return.

Good work to all who contributed their time and effort into creating this document. It seems very complete yet concise.

This looks like a pretty thorough document. I have concerns over the proposed
“membership fees” and the 15 month advance notice for leaving the system. As a small special library, funded entirely by the research projects at the lab, I am not able to obligate the federal government to an expense, with an unknown value, without having that money set aside prior to the commitment. I’m hoping once we learn the amounts of these newly established fees, we are given the opportunity to withdraw from the system without penalty, if needed.

@Pat Lacey
Pat, thanks for taking the time to comment. Can you please be more specific as to which fees are causing you concern? I can think of three areas that deal with fees in this document. The first would be nonresident fees, the second would be fees associated with participation in the LLSAP and the last would be fees involved in cooperative discounts.

Looks great! It is well thought out, well worded, and has successfully traversed some of the sticky issues recently discussed in LTLS.

Looks to be a thorough and well-thought-out document. I read the “membership fees” referred to in the LLSAP section as the fees each automated library pays to be part of the LLSAP – not part of the library system in general.

It looks great!

In Section II-A-2-(d), why is it required to mark a nonresident card clearly? Is this in the law? Why does it matter if someone is a nonresident? It seems like clearly marking them lends itself to discrimination.

This document is very concise and to the point. I know it must have required hours and hours of time and talent. Will the fees be in keeping with the old fees?

My mistake…I was confused and looked at the part in question, it is referring to the LLSAP and we do not participate/use that service. THANKS for helping me clarify. @Ellen Popit

@Jeanne Hamilton
Jeanne, thanks for the comment. The designation is part of the Illinois Administrative Code. Here’s the ruling:

Section 3050.50 Criteria for Non-Resident Library Cards

a) The non-resident library card issued by a participating public library should include, at a minimum, the name of the library; the expiration date of the non-resident library card; and the words “Non-Resident”. The non-resident library card shall be issued for 12 months subject to the exemptions in Section 30-55.60 of the Public Library District Act of 1991 [75 ILCS 16/30-55.60] and the Illinois Local Library Act [75 ILCS 5/4-7(8)].

b) A local use only card may not be issued to a non-resident whether or not a library participates in the non-resident library card program.

Nice Job. I think this document is comprehensive and addresses the business of resource sharing successfully.

I appreciate the significant effort made to generate this document and the policies held within. I come from a financial perspective and want to express some specific concerns I have with the generalities expressed in the policies. I generally agree with the underlying philosophy of the policies but feel strongly that individual libraries must be able to guide their own futures. To this end, restrictions of resource sharing indicate that they are “as necessary” but it needs to specify that necessity is at least in part determined by the local library and not a system policy. Likewise, appropriations should be “as available and practical” for the individual library. As others, have indicated, some federal funding sources don’t allow certain categories of expense. In other cases libraries may have to choose among competing priorities for their resources and must be allowed to always place their interests toward their tax base/funding base primarily.

On the lending policy that indicates the 60% or more as an established guide for reciprocal borrowing policies that needs to be flexible. As Illinois loses funding, as local taxing bodies cut funding and taxpayers refuse to pass referendums in the near future, libraries MUST be able to protect their resources for their primary tax base first. There needs to be some sort of stipulation that allows consideration of individual scenarios that lets libraries set their own futures.
Again, along financial lines, libraries must have the authority to set their own policies for payment or non payment of copying fees. It can be encouraged but not mandated and without limit.
The statement about encouraging new libraries to join through subsidies and grants should be reconsidered. The obligation of the system is first to its members. While new libraries should be encouraged to join, there should be no obligation to offer subsidies or grants. This is especially true in the current fiscal environment of Illinois where it is highly likely grant funds are going to be reduced in the next several years.
The statement that staff must be allowed to attend continuing education should be modified to indicate as individual libraries resources and policies allow.
If costs are going to be incurred when leaving the system, the specific nature of those costs and the methodology for establishing them should be stated in the policy upfront. Additionally, if a library is leaving then its portion of the capital placed in holding for future automation should be returned to that library. IT was designed for their share of that system and if they are not participating they should not bear the future costs nor be forced to have their monies contribute toward it.
Finally, with the indication that the four separate reserves are going to be retained individually, there appears to be no cost savings or additional revenue enhancements available through this source.
Taken as a whole, with what I know at this point, I can find no single possibility of cost savings in this merger. I also see a basic continuation of general policies and practices that are likely to be unsustainable in a bleak economic future. While there is a policy herein that states efforts will be made to envision new ways of delivering services and maintaining a widely open and used reading environment, I can find no evidence that consideration is being given to alternative methods of delivery, reciprocal practices or recognition of fiscal sustainability.
While I applaud and support wide use of resources and the availability of as many resources as possible for as many as possible for as often as possible, it must be done in a fiscally sound manner that takes into consideration future planning and strategic thinking. I remain concerned that this undertaking will generate no cost savings, will not alter the basic delivery methods or processes nor will do anything to specifically move us toward a future that is rapidly changing.

looks good, thanks.

I have read the document/changes. They address concerns LTLS had.

I appreciate that care was taken to represent the wide variety of sizes of libraries. It seems to cover everyone fairly well.

While the Resource Sharing document is billed as a Plan, it is written as if it were a policy. Which is it?
Section I Overview is unnecessary and misplaced in a document of this nature. (My two cents)
RE Sandra Jones’ comments on local autonomy: Local autonomy is very important to our libraries and the investment of libraries in a new system may be inversely related to the perception of the degree to which local autonomy is respected, valued and deemed valid regardless of the size of the library or area served. The new system should explicitly honor local autonomy in its policies.
The various components of resource sharing are mentioned in Paragraph 1 of the Introduction. In Paragraph 2: “One point that must not be lost is that the library service of resource sharing is not free.” This is stated in relation to non-resident cards. It isn’t clear whether “costs” are also implicit in the other components of resource sharing. If they are, a door has been opened and it isn’t clearly specified what is on the other side.
If the library system assumes the role of “monitor” as mentioned in several places of the document, how will this work with four different LLSAPs and sets of governances? Is the load leveling function to be dictated by the system? Doesn’t this dishonor the professionalism of the individual library? Sounds a bit Big Brother-ish. If they have no intent of taking action or if there are no consequences, why bother?
In general, I fail to see how this document can be labeled a policy. There are too many unknowns as yet. I suggest it be called Draft Plan lest we box ourselves into a corner in haste.
I do appreciate the work that must have gone into a task of this enormity. It cannot have be easy.

Great piece of work! It’s impressive how comprehensive this document is, although some revising and streamlining may help it flow better.
My only concern is the statement in the second paragraph, “…library users should be able to get what they want on the terms that they choose…”. Sounds nice, but I believe a better (and more realistic) goal is for libraries to work together toward getting what they NEED on the terms that serve the local/library communities best.
All good wishes as you process the final version.

Thanks for everyone’s hard work. It looks very comprehensive and addresses some issues that were on people’s minds.

Document (Section II & Section III) is comprehensive but Section IV. LLSAP POLICY does NOT address the ROLES of the LLSAP(s) other than paying whatever fees the “System” sets for use of products the “System” chooses and to follow all “System” policies. There is NO documented process for system membership input into what affects them directly – automation, cost or procedures.