Archive

Archive for the ‘Southern System Planning’ Category

Summary of School Membership Criteria for the Southern Systems

November 4th, 2010 Comments off

Summary of School Membership Criteria for the Southern Systems posted on basecamp 9/21/2010 for the Legal, Governance & Membership Subcommittee. (PDF)

Minutes for the 9.14.2010 meeting of the Planning Panel at Shawnee Library System in Carterville, IL.

November 4th, 2010 Comments off

Amended Minutes of the September 14, 2010
Southern System Planning Panel

Place:

Carterville Community Center

120 N. Greenbriar Road
Carterville, Illinois

Date:

September 14, 2010

Attending:

LCLS:Ron Coleman, Linda McDonnell, JoAnn Nabe, and Dianne Steele, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt), Harriett Zipfel (Alt)

LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Scott Drone- Silver (Alt), Rosanne Reidner

RPLS: Val Green, Richard Helton, Amy Ihnen, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt), Nina Wunderlich

SHLS: Marian Albers, Karen Bounds, Arlene Dueker (Alt), Tom Turner

Absent:

Anita Trame (Alt), Andrea Witthoft

Other’s Present:

LCLS:Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas

LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze

RPLS: Bev Obert, Doris McKay

SHLS: Ellen Popit, Tracy Edwards

ILS: Anne Craig, Greg McCormick

Audience: Esther Curry, Judy Daubs, Randy Domineck, Brenda Funkhouser, Brenda Gilpatrick, Tammy Grah, Judy Groom, Janet Hicks, Denise Karns, Kay Marshall, Gisa Power, Cindy Pulsford, Joan Rhoades, Jane Robertson, Portia Stueve, Laura Trowbridge, Anita Walters, Lacy Wright, and Diane Yeoman

Introductions begin at:

1:16 pm following meetings of the Subcommittees and a tour of the Shawnee Library System.

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions

Start Up Introductions
Purpose
Desired Outcomes
Agenda Additions

Ellen Popit facilitated the introductions. There was agreement on the meeting purpose, desired outcomes of committee meetings, and desired outcomes of the planning meeting.

Ellen reviewed the agenda and asked if there were any additions. It was agreed that the opportunity for comments and questions to and from Ann Craig and Greg McCormick would be added to the Agenda after the report on feedback from members.

Review and
Approval of the
minutes from
August 12th meeting

Ronald Coleman moved and Diane Steele seconded the motion to approve the minutes from the August 12, 2010 meeting. The motion carried.

Report on Issues/
Concerns from
Members

JoAnn Nabe indicated that members requested that vendor discounts be available. Other concerns expressed by LCLS members included a request for the same frequency of delivery service; that the panel review research from ILA; begin thinking about a mediator/facilitator and have it in place before it is needed; and LLSAPs keeping the money they have in reserve separate for use only by its members.

Rosanne Reidner reported that LTLS members had concerns regarding maintaining a commitment to multitype libraries and remembering that all types of libraries are essential; what the new membership criteria will be; the actual structure of the new system; how decisions made for the new system will affect finances; how to move material throughout a larger area; remember that not all libraries can pay for services; how meetings would be conducted under the Open Meetings Act; cost of automation system and issues of all libraries on one system; maintain commitment to resource sharing; and can systems survive without a merger.

Valerie Green discussed the concerns of RPLS members which include the need for a neutral facilitator; the need to consider changing boundaries and how boundaries fit the needs of libraries. the need for all planning panels across the state could meet; cost of LLSAPS , cataloging, etc.; need for a timeline; due diligence on the documents and make sure they are shared; not all systems are prepared to move forward; a need to talk to the Northern System’s to see how their merger process if going. It was noted that the last Northern Systems meeting did not go well because of technology issues.

Marian Albers indicated that SHLS members were concerned about for their LLSAP – what the fees would be and how much to budget. Ellen shared that she gives positive weekly reports on the LLSAPs to keep members informed. She further indicated that these reports are appreciated.

The comments posed on Cooperation Today were copied for discussion at the meeting. Clarification was given on when/ whether members had to vote on the merger. It was also discussed when agreements will be made by consensus versus by votes. Motion made by Marion Albers and seconded by Diane Steel that all issues that need a “yah” or “nay” to be considered an official vote, The motion was approved.

State Library
Questions and
Comments

Ann Craig was asked to clarify the deadline for having merger complete. Ann indicated that the June 8th memo she sent clearly states that the merger is in the hands of the Systems and their Board of Directors. There is a need to eliminate duplication of services or may find themselves unable to continue. There will be no increase in the next FY and beyond. FY 2012 will be even more difficult. Decisions should be made in light of the economic climate and the increases in costs all systems are facing. This crisis has been exacerbated by the cash flow issues. The priorities expressed by the Secretary of State are resource sharing, LLSAPS, TBBS, and delivery. The FY is a cleaner time to make changes.

The State Library is working on a document that will provide some timelines/milestones by which certain things need to be achieved. It was stated that every System has agreed to discuss merger but no System has actually agreed to merge. The first milestone will be for the boards to vote to merge.

A question was posed as to whether other mergers produced cost savings and if so, how did they do it. The response was that staff is a large part of a service organization’s budget. Merging takes advantage of the efficiency of scale. If all Systems merge, maintain all facilities and all staff – no savings would be realized. Consideration has to be given to overhead costs and duplicate administrative units.

Cumberland Trail and Kaskaskia were disillusionments and not quite the same.

Another question was whether it would be possible at the System Director’s and President’s meeting in October to have a Statewide discussion on an exchange of ideas as to how the merger processes are going. Ann answered that the meeting would not be a statewide meeting, but would be an open meeting and that the merger is on the agenda.

The comment was made as to whether this is a choice of merge or be merged. A lot of time has been and will be spent working on this and there was concern that the State Library might comes back later and indicate that Systems should do something different. The response from the State Library was that this is a very fluid environment and these are extraordinary times. There are very explicit instructions in the law regarding reviewing and redrawing the boundaries for Systems. The law was read. See the law -3321AC 3030.120, Page 163 23IL admin code. If the Systems put themselves out of business, then the Illinois State Library could divide the libraries up (3030.110).

Review Revised
Planning Document

See Version 4 of the Planning Document which has been posted on Basecamp. It includes changing from 1 to 2 alternates; changing the role of the directors from facilitator to coordinator, and having the panel vote on all motions. The motion was moved, seconded and carried.

A motion made by Valerie seconded by Diane Steele to leave the planning documents as standalone documents and to mark the changes (bolded, underlined, or otherwise highlighted).

Timeline of Key
Milestones

Delivery Committee
Have a plan for delivery – mid December 2010

Legal/Governance Committee
Legal requirements/liabilities (from business mgrs and
Audits) – 10/01/2010
List of assets (from business mgrs and audits) –12/01/2010
Applications to the State Library for the merger – 04/01/2010.
Seek vote or ratification, as needed, of merger to members
– Month of February 2010
Draft document to boards for vote – month of March 2010

Resource Sharing Committee
Gather LLSAP financials, member information, and OCLC Statistics – end of September 2010
Have a recommended plan – end of December 2010

Strategic Planning Committee
Have a survey completed –mid October 2010
Have strategic plan written – 01/01/2010

It was moved by Tom Turner and seconded by Karen Bounds that these timelines as outlined be accepted and put on the planning document with other additions added as needed. The motion carried.

Report on Fiscal
Data Requested at
August 12, 2010
Meeting

Legal/Governance Committee

It was reported that the committee would look into the idea of intergovernmental agreements. A question was posed as to whether the intergovernmental agreement would be consistent with the vote already taken by each System board on the expectations and roles of each system. It was discussed that the intergovernmental agreement was not mutually exclusive of the agreement. The intergovernmental agreement would indicate the roles and responsibilities of each System during the merger and then would stop when the new entity is in place.
The panel agreed to let the committee do its research and then report back to the panel.

Information needed include each Systems assets by December and liabilities by November. The committee will also look at IMRF, health insurance, and other benefits. Issues to complete due diligence will be identified. The boards will have information in March and the application completed by April 1, 2010.

Some of the requirements for the merger include – an application for the new system; a new board with 5-15 members (with representation from each System and the largest representation being from public libraries); bylaws; and a plan of service. There is not set content for the application.

The membership criteria were discussed. It was mentioned that the proposed new standards were suspended. However the committee will look at the proposed standards and how the public libraries meet them. There was also discussion regarding perhaps the need to grandfather some existing libraries. The new proposed school criteria are somewhat unrealistic given the current economic situation.

The committee will require e-mails and conference calls before the next meeting.

It was also mentioned that while it is not required to have members vote under certain circumstances, our group chose to pole members. The members would only have to ratify the merger if it is decided to change the boundaries. It is currently undecided as to whether there will be a poll or a formal vote.

Resource Sharing Committee

The committee discussed how resource sharing is a core value. They will gather statistics on LLSAP, information on use, member versus non member information, and information on funding.

Pat Bose made a report on the current LLSAP managers who have been meeting. Managers began meeting in April because they do not have enough staff and want to be collaborative. In total there are about 450 libraries with a circulation of about 12 million items. To remain positive, the managers focus on commonalities. The Automation Committee has a draft proposal which was presented to the Resource Sharing Committee. They will have a resource sharing plan by December.

The basic values of the Automation Committee were also discussed. There is a commitment to support resource sharing.

They will look for indepth collections and more libraries to be brought into the group. There is a belief in cooperation and the automation managers want the LLSAPs to stay under a System. However, there is concern that if the LLSAPs form separate nonprofits, they may become closed organizations.

Many members are using full functionality of systems. The LLSAP staff have to walk the line of proving full support of automation, helping libraries become more efficient and yet being affordable and having the appropriate functionality.

It is difficult for existing staff to do new developments because of staff issues. They may eventually share the same platform to help provide new innovative. The aspect of delivery is essential, but there are no solutions for funding. It is a work in progress and it is essential that there is a continuation of building relationship with members.

Library Systems should be looking at what we can create for Southern Illinois and what we can share with the rest of the state. The LLSAPs are looking at all the available systems. And who can support the size of a combined LLSAP.

This group is working together with honesty and good faith. The Automation Committee feels they are very fortunate to have the work this group has done.

Strategic Planning Committee

The Strategic Planning Committee held two meetings. They are working on developing a Strategic Plan and are recommending that library members provide input into the Strategic Plan by participating in a survey. The Committee is working on the content of the survey and is requesting additional input from members of other committees. The survey will be distributed using Survey Monkey.

Thus far, the Committee has agreed that the survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete; will be cross- tabbed based on demographics such as library type and size; will contain both open and closed ended questions; and should include questions designed to meet the needs of other committees.

It was also recommended that the Panel Alternates be used to test the survey.

The goal is to have the survey instrument completed by mid October with the results posed on Cooperation Today.

The Committee needs to have any recommended questions to be included in the survey by Friday, September 24. Another meeting will be held in about 10 days to complete the details of the survey instrument so it can be forwarded to the Alternates for pre-testing. Recommended questions to be added to the survey can be sent using Basecamp or can be mailed directly to Jan Ison and she will forward the suggestions to other Committee members.

Delivery Committee

The Delivery Committee has met twice, one via a conference call and the meeting today. A priority will be providing good delivery for all four Systems. It was recognized that delivery has never been the same from one year to the next.

The committee is convinced that delivery can be provided to members in the very large consolidated geographical area. A pictorial view was displayed which showed all four Systems with hubs in various areas.

It was agreed that a subcommittee with representatives from each system will be established to develop a system that will investigate how to maximize the economies of scale of all four systems considered as a whole. The Committee will also be asking the subcommittee to look at Monday – Friday delivery, recognizing that not all libraries will get five day a week service. There may be a need to also consider alternative delivery methods, as appropriate. The Committee agreed that there is a need to have multiple hubs.

The current delivery encourages local sharing of materials. (catalogable items). Currently there are 32 delivery routes. Sharing may change dramatically throughout the southern systems after the merger. It was agreed that there must be some changes in the methods used for delivery. Other suggestions to explore will include the idea of delivering to communities rather than to buildings.

Other information needed will include an inventory of vehicles – there are at least 25 (some older than others); the identification of heavy/low use libraries; and the identification of any overlaps of boarder libraries. Consideration will also be given to the fact that whenever a library is brought onto an LLSAP, the delivery increases almost overnight.

Public Comment

Elaine Steingrubey asked the ISL how close the Panel is to the milestone that will be included in the ISL documents. The response was that the Panel is where they need to be. It is the Boards who are in control. Goals have been set that helps the Panel meet their target of July 1, 2011. There is a guarantee from the Secretary of State that he is doing everything he can to support libraries. There are challenges everywhere. The Panel is taking all the “right steps” and are “rock solid” in what it is doing. . Ann further reiterated that there is no move underfoot to remove Library Systems from the budget. The Allocations have been made for FY 2011. ILS is moving quite rapidly and undertaken a lot of work. The milestones will be based on the information
already provided in previous correspondence from the State Library. If a library system does not deal with the issues, then the State would have to step in.

Harriett Zipfel recommended that it would not be a good idea to keep the same library board. Instead perhaps there should be one board for the entire system based on different criteria. She strongly urged the Panel to keep resource sharing a high priority and to find a way to serve the unserved in Illinois, over the long term. She shared that in the State of Indiana, anyone can get a library card.

Elaine Steingrubey requested a clearer definition of resource sharing and to identify where we going and how can we get there. She indicated that there was an appreciation for the situation the State Library is in. She further asked for clarification on the small libraries who are not part of the LLSAPs and where they are in the plans. She explained that she uses her Systems for consulting and other services. Where are these services in the plan? Clarification was requested on what constitutes high, low, or medium volumes of delivery and what happens if the majority of members vote no on the merger? Lastly, Ms. Steingrubey asked how is the information obtained from members going to be used.

Responses to some of these questions included the fact that the Delivery Committee was still working on what constitutes high, medium and low volume. It was suggested that small libraries may need to network to share their wealth of information among themselves. It was stated that networking is resource sharing. Another comment was a reminder that the door is open for small libraries to become LLSAP members. Representatives from the Panel indicated that small libraries will not be forgotten in the process.

Gisa Power indicated that she remembered when Systems went from 12 to 9. She felt the boundaries should have been changed. then. At that time, most of libraries went to Alliance. She wanted to confirm her understanding that the four systems talking about mergers include only current members of those Systems She further requested clarification on how libraries can make sure they have a voice in which new System they will become part of.

At this time, we are not talking about disbursing members among different systems. Nor are we talking about four different boards. If we are talking about splitting members with other systems, then the requirements are different.

Currently, the manner in which System boundaries are established do not follow county or other boundaries. This will be addressed in the revised Administrative Rules. There are timelines and rules for changing Systems. If it is done before the merger, there is one process. Libraries can petition to withdrawal and petition to join another System if they are contiguous. If they do this before the merger, it puts the System under different rules.

It was also shared that there is contact information on all Panel participants. If there is information needed or comments to make, any participant can be contacted.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:19 p.m.

PDF version

LCLS Documents for the September Planning Panel Meeting.

November 3rd, 2010 Comments off

These are the six documents submitted by Lewis & Clark Library System which answered the five questions of the systems for the Planning Panel meeting in September.

  1. Finances: General information, Cashflow p1 , Cashflow p2.
  2. Number of Employees: LCLS Organizational Chart, Employees part 1, Employees part 2.
  3. What is the system still doing?(see #1)
  4. System Status (see #1)
  5. Physical Assets over $10,000 (see #1)

Agenda November 10, 2010 Meeting

November 3rd, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Rolling Prairie Library System Decatur Public Library
345 W. Eldorado, Decatur, IL 130 N. Franklin, Decatur, IL
Phone 217 429-2586

10:30 AM – 4:30 PM

Meeting Purpose

The purpose of this meeting is to further the work of the panel toward the Goal/Outcome as approved by the individual system boards.

Desired Outcomes of Planning Meeting

Approve minutes of last meeting,
Understand concerns and questions of members.
Discussion of communication
Reports from the subcommittees

  • Strategic Plan
  • Legal, Governance and Membership
  • Delivery
  • Resource Sharing

Update the Timeline
Gather agenda Items for the December Meeting

Agenda

Topic Process Who time
Subcommittee Meetings & Tour
@ Rolling Prairie
2 hours
10:30 AM
Lunch and Meeting @ Decatur Public Library, Madden Auditorium 1 hour
12:30 PM
Start Ups:
Welcome
Purpose
Desired outcome
Agenda/Additions?
Approve Minutes of October 13th Meeting
Affirm changes to planning document
Present
Check for agreement
Panel
F:Bev
R: Ellen
15 minutes
(1:30 pm)
Report on Issues/concerns from Members Report
Q & A
Next Steps
Panel
F:Jan
R: Leslie
20 minutes
(1:45 pm)
Communication Discussion
Review of SP&D session
Discussion Panel
F: Bev
R: Jan
20 minutes
(2:05 pm)
Report from Subcommittees
Strategic Plan Report
Q & A
Next Steps
Panel
R: Jan
15 minutes
(2:25pm)
Legal, Governance & Membership Report
Q & A
Next Steps
Panel
R: Bev
15 minutes
(2:40 pm)
Break 15 minutes
(2:55 pm)
Resource Sharing Report
Q & A
Next Steps
Panel
R: Ellen
15 minutes
(3:10 pm)
Delivery Report
Q & A
Next Steps
Panel
R: Leslie
15 minutes
(3:25 pm)
Public Comment on Committee reports Comments
Q & A
Panel
F: Jan
R: Ellen
Audience
15 minutes
(3:40 pm)
Timeline of Key Milestones Review Milestones
Add additional Milestones
Agreement
Panel
F: Leslie
R: Bev
15 minutes
(3:55 pm)
Agenda items for next meeting List items
Clarify
Agreement
Panel
F: Jan
R: Bev
5 minutes
(4:10 pm)
Meeting and Facilitation Review Plus/Delta 5 minutes
(4:15 pm)

PDF version of the Agenda.

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

LTLS Demographics

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

LTLS Demographics (PDF) posted for the Strategic Planning Committee 9.13.2010

RPLS Demographics

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

RPLS Demographics (PDF) posted for the Strategic Planning Committee 9.9.2010

LLSAP Proposal 8.26.2010

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

The Southern System Automation Managers seek to develop an LLSAP proposal (PDF) for consideration by the Southern System Planning Panel Resource Sharing committee. This plan includes basic philosophy as well as options for the future.

Stategic Planning committee todo’s from 8.26.2010

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

Stategic Planning committee list of todo’s (PDF) from the August 26, 2010 Conference Call.

Categories: Resources Tags:

Current Mission,Vision,Values of the Southern Systems posted 8.20.2010

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

Current Mission,Vision,Values of the Southern Systems (PDF) posted for the Strategic Planning Subcommittee on August 20, 2010.

Flip notes from the 8.12.2010 Planning Panel Meeting

October 27th, 2010 Comments off

Flip notes from the 8.12.2010 Planning Panel Meeting (PDF)

Strategic Planning Visual 8.3.2010

October 22nd, 2010 Comments off

This is a visual (PDF) posted for the Strategic Planning Subcommittee on August 3, 2010.

Anne Craig Memo 7.19.2010

October 22nd, 2010 Comments off

This is a memo (PDF) from Anne Craig on July 19, 2010 regarding “Responses to Questions Received About Restructuring Library Systems”.

System Director’s Memo 11-005

October 22nd, 2010 Comments off

This is the System Director’s Memo, 11-005, (PDF) from the Illinois State Library which specifies the restructuring documents and the timeline for merging the systems.

Southern Systems Summary Financial Data 7.17.2010

October 22nd, 2010 Comments off

Southern Systems Summary Financial Data (PDF) originally provided to the Southern Systems Planning Panelists on 7.17.2010.

Planning Process v. 6 – 10.18.10

October 18th, 2010 Comments off

Strategic Plan Survey

October 15th, 2010 Comments off

Library Systems in Illinois are faced with financial challenges that necessitate looking at every service offered by the system. The four Southern Systems (LCLS, LTLS, RPLS, SHLS) are in a collaborative planning process to develop a new structure for library cooperation.  We need your help by completing this survey in order for us to create a Strategic Plan.  The link to the survey is:

http://bit.ly/SouthernSystemPlanning

We are asking you the directors, staff, trustees, and agency administrators for input and direction as we re-envision a new future. This survey provides a key opportunity for the Southern System Planning Panel to learn what is important to you. Your responses to the survey will directly impact the Strategic Plan that is being developed. The survey results will be posted to Cooperation Today (www.cooperationtoday.org) and will inform the Planning Panel members as they develop of a service program.

Please complete this survey by November 1, 2010. Your help and thoughtful comments are invaluable to us.

Please share this survey widely.  We want as many people as possible to complete this.  It will take you approximately 10 minutes of your valuable time but we need your help.  Thank you.

Leslie Bednar, LCLS
Jan Ison, LTLS
Bev Obert, RPLS
Ellen Popit, SHLS

Draft Agenda October 13, 2010 Meeting

October 7th, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Lewis & Clark Library System
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL
10:30 AM – 4:35 PM

Meeting Purpose
The purpose of this meeting is to further the work of the panel toward the Goal/Outcome as approved by the individual system boards.

Desired Outcomes of Planning Meeting
Approve minutes of last meeting,
Understand concerns and questions of members.
To have a report on the assets and liabilities of each system and fund balances (per the audit)
To understand the types of enterprise or internal service funds that each system has
Identify the types of outside expertise may be needed by the panel
Reports from the subcommittees

  • Strategic Plan
  • Legal, Governance and Membership
  • Delivery
  • Resource Sharing

Gain an understanding of LLSAP funding and how shared reserves are acquired
Update the Timeline
Gather agenda Items for the November Meeting

Agenda

Topic Process Who time

Subcommittee Meetings

1 1/2 hours
10:30 AM

Lunch and tour of LCLS

1 hour
(noon)

Start Ups:
Welcome
Purpose
Desired outcome
Agenda/Additions?
Approve Minutes of September 14th Meeting
Affirm changes to planning document

Present
Check for agreement

Panel
F:Leslie
R: Jan

15 minutes
(1:00 pm)

Report on Issues/concerns from Members

Report
Q & A
Next Steps

Panel
F:Ellen
R: Leslie

20 minutes
(1:15 pm)

Report on meeting with ALS Board and status of Northern Merger Process

Presentation
Q & A
Next Steps

Jan & Bev

10 minutes
(1:35 pm)

Report on fiscal data requested at August 12 meeting Assets and Liabilities (per the audit) Fund Balances by Fund Enterprise or internal service funds.

Review of data
System Fiscal Officers update
Identify fiscal questions
List
Next Steps

Panel
F: Jan
R: Bev

20 minutes
(1:45pm)

Outside Expertise/Facilitation, Legal, Financial, Transportation

Report
Identify other Expertise
Next Steps

Panel
F: Bev
R: Leslie

10 minutes
(2:05 pm)

Report from Subcommittees

Strategic Plan

Report
Q & A
Next Steps

Panel
R: Jan

15 minutes
(2:15 pm)

Legal, Governance & Membership

Report
Q & A
Next Steps

Panel
R: Bev

15 minutes
(2:30 pm)

Break

15 minutes
(2:45 pm)

Resource Sharing

Report
Q & A
Next Steps

Panel
R: Ellen

15 minutes
(3:00 pm)

Delivery

Report
Q & A
Next Steps

Panel
R: Leslie

15 minutes
(3:15 pm)

Public Comment on Committee reports

Comments
Q & A

Panel
F: Leslie
R: Jan
Audience

15 minutes
(3:30 pm)

LLSAP Funding & Reserves
Document to review Zillane reports

Review of Issue after Resource Sharing Subcommittee report if needed
Identify questions
List
Next Steps

Panel
F: Ellen
R: Bev

20 minutes
(3:45 pm)

Timeline of Key Milestones

Review Milestones
Add additional Milestones
Agreement

Panel
F: Jan
R: Bev

20 minutes
(4:05 pm)

Agenda items for next meeting

List items
Clarify
Agreement

Panel
F: Bev
R: Jan

5 minutes
(4:25 pm)

Meeting and Facilitation Review

Plus/Delta

5 minutes
(4:30 pm)

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Agenda for 9-14-10 Meeting

September 8th, 2010 Comments off

Agenda for the September 14, 2010 meeting in Carterville, IL

Draft agenda 9-14-10

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Minutes for the 8.12.10 Meeting

August 17th, 2010 Comments off

Corrected minutes for the August 12, 2010 meeting in Effingham, IL.

PDF version of the draft minutes from the August 12, 2010 meetining.

Minutes of the August 12, 2010

Meeting of the Southern System Planning Panel

Place: Effingham Knights of Columbus Hall

Date: August 12, 2010 at 1:40 pm

Attending:

LCLS: Ron Coleman, Linda McDonnell, JoAnn Nabe, Diane Steele
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Rosanne Reidner
RPLS: Val Green, Richard Helton, Any Ihnen, Nina Wunderlich
SHLS: Marian Albers, Karen Bounds, Arlene Dueker (Alt), Andrea Witthoft

Absent:
LCLS: Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)
LTLS: Anieta Trame (Alt)
RPLS:
SHLS: Tom Turner

Others Present:
LCLS: Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas
LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze
RPLS: Bev Obert, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt), Doris McKay
SHLS: Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards

Ann Adkesson, Susan Carr, Maria Dent, Louise Greene, Janet Hicks, Kim Keller, Kay Marshall, Annette Mills, Erica Pyle, Joan Rhoades, Judy Thompson, Anita Walters, Lacey Wright

Introductions begin at: 1:45

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions
Start Ups:
Introductions
Purpose
Desired outcome
Agenda/Additions?
Jan Ison facilitated the introductions, review of the purpose and desired outcomes. It was asked
that the second from the last outcome be changed to add, “& working groups.”
Jan Ison reviewed the agenda and asked if the panelists had any additions to be made to the agenda.
Val Green asked for the addition of “Ground Rules for Facilitators.” It was agreed that this would be
added to the agenda before the review of the System Laws.
Approve Minutes of July 14 Meeting Marian Albers moved and JoAnn Nabe seconded the motion that the minutes from the July 14th
meeting
be approved. The motion passed.
Report on Issues from Member Libraries Ellen Popit facilitated the reporting on issues from member libraries.
LCLS: Diane Steele noted that there had been no feed back yet, but that members were being apprised of the process.
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg noted that the LTLS board would like to have the possibility of an Intergovernmental Agreement consideration, as well as the option of having two alternate panelists, special libraries want to be included in the process.
RPLS: Val Green reported that as noted before that the RPLS board had passed a motion to require the use of an independent facilitator in order to participate in these meetings and while the motion had not been rescinded that by consensus they had decided to continue participating. Member librarians have expressed concerns regarding controlling and minimizing the impacts of costs to the members, the use of an independent attorney and planning for the new entity beyond current physical boundaries.
SHLS: Karen Bounds reported that ShLS board had approved all three of the recommended actions, but would ask that the system be allowed to appoint two alternates to the panel. Arlene Dueker noted that there were concerns that no changes be made to delivery.
Action Items: Decision on two alternates, and voting vs consensus. The panelists express the desire to vote individually. The panelists agreed to allow the selection of two alternates, not necessarily members of the respective boards. Diane motioned for each system to have two alternates, Karen second, approval by concensus. Aye votes of the whole gave Unanimous approval.
Discussion followed about vote counting – each person on the Panel has a vote. Also, motions give clearer picture of what is being voted on, followed by one vote per panel member. This is to be added to the Planning Process document. [pdf]
Review proposed revised planning document
Member Input Section
Rules of Engagement for Public Comment
Ellen Popit presented and Leslie Bednar facilitated the proposed revisions to the planning document regarding the new sections, Rules of Engagement for Public Comments and Member Input.
Diane Steele requested that the types of meetings be clarified in the Planning Process document. (ie. Library Advisory) There was a discussion about to how best insure that member comments made on the CooperationToday website were addressed by the panelists.
Action items: Clarify types of system meetings in the Member Input sentence – “Through other meetings at systems”- Planning Process document. Report on new issues and comments on the CooperationToday website are to be posted on BaseCamp. It was agreed that both of these would be changed and that the revisions would be made to the Planning Process document [pdf].
Added agenda item to add to the planning document the “Ground Rules for Facilitators.” Ellen Popit presented and Leslie Bednar facilitated the proposed revision to the planning document regarding the “Ground Rules for Facilitators.”
Ground rules from the July 27th meeting of System Directors and Staff were posted on the flipchart as a starting point for discussion.

  • System Directors will create good agendas at least one week prior to the scheduled Planning Process meetings and posted in BaseCamp and on CooperationToday.
  • The draft Planning Process minutes will be posted within five working days.
  • Acronyms should be defined.
  • Flip chart pages should be posted in Cooperation today as separate section.
  • All documents posted on Coop2Day
  • Flipchart takes precedent over the notes.
  • Final Draft of Minutes duty should be rotated.

Val Green asked that board Panelists be allowed to submit agenda items as a suggestion to the
whiteboards. It was suggested that this be the last agenda item at each meeting to allow panelists to
make suggestions for agenda items for the next meeting.
Action items: It was agreed that this should be added to the Planning Panel process document [pdf].

System Law/Administrative rules, & Anne Craig Memo dated July 19, 2010 Bev Obert presented and Leslie Bednar facilitated the discussion of the Anne Craig Memo from July 19, 2010 and the library law and Administrative Rules regarding the restructuring, liquidation or merging of system.
There was a discussion of the use of webconferencing to facilitate the process when the geographic area covered was sufficiently large. Val Green asked if there might be LSTA money available to facilitate the merger process and associated costs.
There was a discussion about funding and questions about if the Illinois State Library (ISL ) had been invited to the meeting. It was noted that the ISL had been invited but was not able to attend. Nina Pals asked if there were any laws regarding Inter-governmental agreements that might be applicable to forming an over-arching agency rather than merging. Rochelle Funderburg indicated that she did not think that it would be prohibited. It was asked if the only options were to Merge or Die.
Action items: Contact ISL regarding LSTA funding and Inter-governmental agreements.
Subcommittees/ Working Groups Definition, Subcommittee Charge Timeline, Jan Ison presented and Bev Obert facilitated the discussion of the draft document on the Subcommittees and Working Groups.
Marian Albers indicated that she felt that there should be one panelist on each working group and serve as the liaison.
Val Green asked if it was really necessary for the system directors to facilitate the subcommittees, since there would only be four people on the Subcommittee. There was a discussion of the system director’s access to necessary information, and it was suggested that the system directors be an operational resource person rather than a facilitator. There was a discussion of who would be the leaders of these groups and it was suggested that each would select their own. There was an extended discussion about how the groups would get comparable financial data, and whether or not there was a need for a financial working group made up of the business managers.
[Bin: The financial working group was added to the bin.]
A 15 minute break was taken.
Public Comment on Subcommittee/ Working Group proposal Leslie Bedinar facilitated the Public Comments on the Working Group proposal. Kay Marshall made a comment that she felt that while they were working to form one system and that up to one-third of the current panelists were likely to be members of the new board, so that they should approach this as one panel working for one system.
Juliette Douglas suggested that since each system has a business manager that they should be working together as a group providing consistent financial information.
Subcommittees/ Working Groups Definition, Subcommittee Charge Timeline, Appointments/ Volunteers Jan Ison facilitated the discussion on the subcommittees, working group definition, subcommittee charge timeline, and appointments/volunteers.

It was suggested that either the business managers could be

  1. a resource
  2. a working group
  3. Wait

Action items:
It was agreed that the system directors would be referred to as coordinators rather than facilitators in the draft document.
It was also agreed that the working groups should have one panelist who is the liaison.
It was decided that the role of the business managers would be a future agenda item.
Panelists were selected for each of the subcommittees.
Strategic Planning: Val Green, Linda McDonnell, Rosanne Reidner, Andrea Witthoft
Legal, Governance & Membership: Rochelle Funderburg, Diane Steele, Tom Turner, Nina Wunderlich
Delivery: Marian Albers, Ron Coleman, Richard Helton, Allen Lanham
Resource Sharing: Karen Bounds, Amy Ihnen, JoAnn Nabe, Nina Pals

What information does the panel feel they still need?
  • Finances
  • Current # of employees?
  • What is each system still doing?
  • System status update
  • Physical assets (over $10,000)
  • Needed by September 1st.
Organizational Meetings of Subcommittees. This was done after the meeting.
Report Back This was done after the meeting.
Review Bin
Next steps-
Financial working group discussion was listed as a future agenda item.
Next step of boards: appoint 2nd alternate
Meeting Review including facility & facilitation + great location
Delta – Difficult to hear, meet at each system

There was a discussion about meeting dates. The second Thursday seemed to be the preferred date, but it conflicts with the October System Presidents & Directors meeting at the ISL.

  • September at Carterville
  • October at Edwardsville
  • November at Decatur
  • December at Champaign

A calendaring program will be used to arrive at an October meeting date.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

PDF version

Revised Agenda for 8.12.10 Meeting

August 9th, 2010 Comments off

Revised agenda for the August 12, 2010 meeting in Effingham, IL.

Agenda8-12-10revised

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Planning Panels – Dates for Meetings Announced

July 30th, 2010 Comments off

The Planning Panels will begin their discussions on August 12, 2010 from 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus, 1501 West Fayette Avenue, Effingham, IL.

The panels will continue on September 14, 2010 from 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. at the Knights of Columbus, 1501 West Fayette Avenue, Effingham, IL.

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Minutes for 7.14.10 Meeting

July 23rd, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Meeting
Vandalia, Illinois
July 14, 2010

Present
LCLS: Leslie Bednar, JoAnn Nabe, Diane Steele, Linda McDonnell, Erica Pyle, Amanda McKay, Juliette Douglas, Harriett Zipfel, Hugh Westbrooks, Kevin Becker, Ron Coleman, Bonnie Kilmurray
LTLS: Jan Ison, Allen Lanham, Roseanne Reidner, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins
RPLS: Beverly Obert, Nina Wunderlich, Valerie Green, Dick Helton, Mike Szymkoski, Lacey Wright, Ann Adkesson, Julia Welzen, Anita Walters, Joan Rhoades, Nancy Huntley, Doris McKay, Sarah Hjeltness-Garley, Amy Ihnen, Lee Ann Fisher, Maria Dent
ShLS: Ellen Popit, Karen Bounds, Marian Albers, Judy Groom, Tambree Krouse, Troy Brown, Randy Domineck
ISL: Anne Craig, Lauren Tucker

Ellen Popit welcomed everyone to the meeting, asked those present to introduce themselves. Ellen also indicated that those around the table were System Directors and elected System Boards members. The meeting’s discussion would happen with those present at the table. However, there would be two opportunities for public comment from others, who were present in the public gallery, during the meeting.

Jan asked for the group to contribute to ground rules – on how meetings should be run. These included:

  • All comments are important
  • Don’t everyone talk at once
  • Be concise
  • Think of the citizens of the state
  • Stay on topic
  • Be realistic in comments
  • Vote/Consensus

Leslie asked if everyone had a copy of the financial comparison document and opened the discussion up for questions. There were questions about unemployment liability differences between each system, the CMC (Catalog Maintenance Center’s) grants and amount for FY2011, and LCLS’s IMRF liability. Others had questions about what is the CMC and whether it will continue to be funded. Leslie said that ISL has indicated both CMC grants will be funded in FY2011.

Ellen facilitated a discussion about the draft Goal/Outcome for the Planning Process. There was discussion about the shared automation (LLSAP) wording, with a suggestion to change the wording to ‘including providing shared automation services and delivery. The Goal/Outcome, with the slight wording change, was accepted by consensus.

Jan and Leslie reviewed the DRAFT – Planning Process document developed jointly by the four system directors for the meeting. The document incorporates design of a Planning Panel group process and steps through organization and processes that could be put in place to facilitate the work of the panel. This includes development of a web site location (Cooperation Today) for sharing documents, use of project management software to record milestones (Basecamp), recorders from each system who would jointly assist with notes and summarizing meetings. The plan includes consensus decision-making, which means everyone agrees, as opposed to some for/some against or a voting majority decision. There was a review of the proposed timeline. This is a working document that can be changed as we move forward.

There was then a facilitated discussion on each section.

Planning Panel– Planning panel will need to discuss how to get and receive input from system libraries so we know how to move forward with their interests in mind. Perhaps there should be a ‘roles of the member libraries’ section.

There was a suggestion that at each of the planning panel meetings to reserve time to allow each system to report on concerns from members to the entire planning panel. The following was added: each system panel group is responsible for reporting issues from their system member libraries; this may include using surveys as tools.

Process and Meeting Facilitators – Subcommittees should be planning panel members who can bring in expertise as needed. Not all expertise may come from the system staff; expertise could come from others who assist the subcommittee in gathering information. Subcommittee of the planning panel has final say in what to recommend, but can utilize expertise from others outside of the panel. It was also proposed that the Planning Panel could create other working groups as needed.

On the subject of meeting facilitators, several said ‘what directors did today is working very well’ – directors have knowledge of what is going. If someone is hired from the outside, they will still require a ‘leader’ from the group to give them direction, and this can be expensive. Rolling Prairie wants to maintain objectivity with a neutral facilitator and voted at a previous Board meeting that they wanted an outside facilitator. There was concern about how the meetings were going to work, but everyone likes the collective input of the four directors. There is concern for the four directors to continue to communicate and work together, as well as the amount of work involved. As long as the four directors can get along together, this process at today’s meeting is working well. Just want to make sure we can continue to move forward. We should continue to review the need for an outside facilitator during the process. Directors believe this is the work that they are supposed to be doing – it’s the directors’ job right now, to manage this process.
Proceeding Recorders – Directors and staff involved will take care of posting documents to Cooperation Today web site as well as compiling documents. Directors will designate staff as recorders– these people may change through the process. Staff member from each system will take notes and then share them with each of the other system recorders for review and sharing on Cooperation Today. Cooperation Today website will be used to post all public documents pertaining to the process. Basecamp (project management software) will be used to maintain workflow, assign tasks, and mark completed tasks. There must be mechanism for public to make comments to documents and submit issues and questions about the process.

Tools – add Face-to-Face meetings and online surveys to the list.

Givens – remove ‘must create ground rules’ because those were created at the beginning of the meeting.

Decision-Making – rearrange order as follows:

  1. The front line decision makers are the Planning Panel.
  2. The Planning Panel will operate by consensus for decision-making
  3. Key milestones of the planning process will go to Boards for decisionmaking
  4. Ongoing decision makers are the Boards of the Systems
  5. The ultimate decision makers are the member libraries.

Decision Points – change the word ‘Key’ to ‘Preliminary’

Additional Decisions –

  • Add Legal Consulting as needed (but must be a decision made on how this will be funded)
  • Financial Decisions for each system

Timeline – the timeline is aggressive but do-able.

There was additional discussion that the Planning Process ocument should be revised and revisited by the Planning Panel at every meeting.

Public Comment
Bev facilitated public comment sessions. Much of the public comment focused on the need for member library representation on the Planning Panel as well as continued need for an outside, neutral facilitator. There were also comments about the Panel size, Board quorum issues related to Open Meetings Act, structuring communications so library members can have knowledge about and input to the process, and how to relate information back to the member libraries.

After the public comment section, the group discussed assumptions and agreed on the following:

  1. All meetings will be held in accordance with Open Meetings Act
  2. All systems should provide access to the public documents concerning the process
  3. Documents should be made available on the Cooperation Today website and must be open for comments
  4. We are undertaking this process in a good faith effort
  5. Positions currently held by staff are not guaranteed
  6. Members of the Planning Panel are responsible to report to System Boards and bring issues back from those Boards to the Planning Panel
  7. Any assumptions made here are not set in stone.

Jan Ison updated the group on the status of Northern Systems.

  1. All five system boards had agreed to sign the Non-binding Letter of Agreement at their June board meetings.
  2. They agreed to contribute $10,000 each to the process.
  3. They plan to have a new governance structure in place by November.
  4. They plan to hire in January or February a new Executive Director for the merged system.
  5. Their first meeting is planned for the first part of August.

Obert facilitated the discussion on recommendations. The following recommendations were drafted to take back to the System Boards for official action:

  1. Board is asked to endorse the Goal/Outcome statement as amended.
  2. Board is asked to endorse and support the planning document in principle set out by this committee and as amended during the discussion.
  3. Board is asked to formally appoint 4 representatives and 1 alternate to the Planning Process group.

Once the recommendations were set, the group finalized the makeup of the Planning Panels. It was decided that each System would appoint 4 board members from each system for the planning panel. An alternate would be assigned, but would only participate as a voting member if one of the 4 members weren’t available. The alternate can come from either a Board position or a library member. Consider holding these meetings in the beginning of the month to accommodate for later in the month board meetings.

Additional Public Comment:
Still need facilitator
Leave it up to each system to determine 4 people. Not necessarily from the board, could also be member librarians.
Reword the comment about employment and be more positive. ”Juliette Douglas suggested that the wording of the “Assumption” regarding employment might be better framed in a positive light by saying, “All new positions will be filled through a competitive process.”” Those participating in the discussions accepted this rewording.

Jan reviewed the items placed in the ‘Bin’

  • Will ISL continue to fund two CMC’s if we merge?
  • Continually assess need for outside facilitator
  • Member library input – need more specific things to put in the planning process on how this happens.
  • Names of panel members and contact info on Cooperation Today web site. – www.cooperationtoday.info

Next steps:

  • Post documents on Cooperation Today web site
  • Plan for a first meeting of the Planning Panel during the first two weeks in August

Click here for the Adobe PDF

Planning Process – 7.16.10

July 20th, 2010 Comments off

Planning Process – Southern Systems
Version 2.0
Goal/ Outcome

By July 1, 2011 to create a new and revitalized cooperative library service organization that encompasses the libraries in southern Illinois that are part of the LCLS, LTLS, RPLS and SHLS library systems, as well as any contiguous libraries or library systems that wish to be part of this cooperative program.  The organization will support the primary resource sharing services for the people of Illinois including providing automation services and physical delivery.   During the process for creating a restructured program it is anticipated that the plan will address how to expand and enhance these programs as well as support other cooperative programs such as advisory and education services.  At the end of the development process it is anticipated that there will be one administrative organization formed by uniting the current organizations through a merger process.

Roles

Planning Panel – The planning panel is a group of representatives from the Library System Boards who will work together to create a new and revitalized cooperative library service organization.

  • Representatives from each of Boards of the Southern Systems
  • 4 representatives from each board plus a formal alternate
  • Panel as a whole should be multitype
  • Panel should represent the interests of the people of Illinois
  • Panel should represent the interest of all the libraries in the region
  • Panel needs to be open to new ideas and creative in its approach to cooperative activities.
  • Each System Planning Panel group is responsible for reporting issues from the System member libraries at each meeting.
  • Subcommittees of the Planning Panel will be created.  Those subcommittees may invite topic experts to assist them.
  • Panel may set up additional working groups as needed with composition of the group to be determined at the time of appointment.
  • Additional:

Process and Meeting Facilitators – The process and meeting facilitators for the Planning Panel will be the current directors and interim directors of the Southern Systems.

  • Jointly develop agendas
  • Serve as meeting conveners, facilitators and recorders
  • Be neutral in discussions
  • Act as resource staff for the Planning Panel but not during the time that they are facilitating or recording.
  • Respect each other and clarify processes prior to meetings so that they go smoothly
  • Meeting weekly or more to ensure that planning goes smoothly
  • Assist Subcommittees as appropriate

Proceedings Recorders — The proceedings recorders will be a designated staff member from each of the systems.  The recorders will utilize the notes that the meeting facilitators create and other notes to create formal proceedings notes for each meeting.

  • Jointly develop proceedings notes
  • Post proceedings on Cooperation Today website
  • Post proceedings on the BaseCamp project management site
  • Attend all meetings of the Planning Panel
  • Notes to be completed and posted no later than 5 working days following the meeting.

Tools:

  • Cooperation Today web site for the public posting of all formal documents and calendar of events (eg minutes,agenda, plans etc.)
  • BaseCamp for the project management part of the site
  • Adobe Connect for online meetings
  • Video Conferencing for online meetings
  • Conference Calls
  • Face to Face Meetings
  • Survey Tools (eg Survey Monkey)
  • Others as needed

Givens

  • Multitype Organization – Includes all types of libraries
  • Utilize an open and transparent meeting process

Assumptions

  • Every participant has an equal voice
  • All Meetings are open and in accordance with the Illinois Open Meetings Act
  • Members of the Planning Panel will participate in discussions
  • Members of the “community” will be provided an opportunity to comment during an open comment time.
  • We assume we are working in good faith
  • Systems will link documents from the Planning Panel through the System website
  • Planning Panel members will report to the local system board and back to the Panel on issues.
  • All new positions will be filled through a competitive process.
  • Any assumption made here is not set in stone.

Decision Making

  • The front line decision makers are the Planning Panel
  • The Planning Panel will operate by consensus for decision-making
  • Key milestones of the planning process will go to Boards for decision -making.
  • Ongoing decision makers are the Boards of the Systems
  • The ultimate decision makers are the member libraries.

Preliminary Decision Points

  • System Boards agree to enter into the process
  • System Board formally appoint 4 representatives from the system board and an alternate who may be a non board member to the Planning Panel.
  • Planning Panel develops a Strategic Plan that includes Mission, Vision, Values as well as strategic directions
  • Current System Boards approve Strategic Plan

Additional Decisions / Issues

  • Service program based on Strategic Plan
  • Determine the size and make up of board.
  • Staffing
  • Current Facilities
  • Bylaws
  • Budget and Funding
  • Geographic Boundaries
  • Create Subcommittees
  • Legal Consulting as needed
  • Financial Decision — allocate agreed upon costs should they occur

Timeline

  • July 2010 – Representatives at July 14, 2010 meeting recommend that the groups enter into a joint planning process
  • July 2010 – Systems Board ratifies the recommendations of the Board representatives and appoints representatives
  • November 2010 — Strategic Plan Approved by the Boards
  • July 1, 2011 – Restructured Organization begins

Final Draft of Outcome Statement from 7.15.10

July 16th, 2010 Comments off

Click here for the Adobe PDF.

Goal/Outcome Statement
Southern System Planning Panel Agreement

July 15, 2010
By July 1, 2011 to create a new and revitalized cooperative library service
organization that encompasses the libraries in southern Illinois that are part of
the LCLS, LTLS, RPLS and SHLS library systems, as well as any contiguous
libraries or library systems that wish to be part of this cooperative program. The
organization will support the primary resource sharing services for the people of
Illinois including providing automation services and physical delivery. During the
process for creating a restructured program it is anticipated that the plan will
address how to expand and enhance these programs as well as support other
cooperative programs such as advisory and education services. At the end of
the development process it is anticipated that there will be one administrative
organization formed by uniting the current organizations through a merger
process.

Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Complete Financial Data for Southern Systems

July 16th, 2010 Comments off

Agenda for 7.14.10 Meeting

July 16th, 2010 Comments off
Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Notes for 6.21.10 Meeting

July 16th, 2010 Comments off
Categories: Southern System Planning Tags:

Agenda for 6.21.10 Meeting

July 15th, 2010 Comments off
Categories: Southern System Planning Tags: