Archive

Posts Tagged ‘minutes’

IHLS Nominating Committee Minutes from 04.28.2011 Posted

May 5th, 2011 Comments off

Minutes, Nominating Committee
Date: April 28, 2011, 2:00pm
Location: Phone Conference

1) Meeting called to order at 2:00pm

2) Roll call
Present:
Diana Brawley Sussman , Committee Chair, Carbondale Public Library
Deanne Holshouser, Edwardsville Public Library
Nancy Huntley, Lincoln Library
Kim Keller , Bryan-Bennett Library
Bev Obert , Committee Liaison, Rolling Prairie Library System

Committee Members absent:
Nina Pals, Sarah Bush Lincoln Hospital Medical Library

Visitors:
None

3) The committee discussed committee assignments and next steps for soliciting and verifying nominations, setting slate of candidates and distributing voting ballot.

Discussion:
A draft ballot was created using almost all candidates who so far had responded to the survey that “yes” they were interested. The few exceptions include: Excluded one candidate who stated that she would not run if someone from her Board wanted to run, and her Board member did want to run; Excluded about 10-12 candidates who answered the survey with “yes,” but did not give their name or contact information; Excluded one or two “yes” candidates who would have thrown off the geographic balance, which guarantees 3-4 seats for each system; Included one candidate who had responded that she was “interested in serving if needed, but would prefer not to” (the only System representative willing to serve; that nominee will run uncontested unless another candidate comes forward).

The ballot groups individuals into pairs, or in some cases, groups of 3. Voters will choose one candidate from each group of 2-3 individuals. This follows ILA’s ballot as an example, and ensures geographic equality. The committee agreed that achieving the geographic equality requested was of utmost importance, and that doing so would make continuing geographic equality much easier to achieve in future elections.

There were more than 300 survey responses. Many people indicated that they were willing to serve if needed, but preferred not to. Because enough candidates said “yes,” they were interested, the committee did not seek out candidates who did not say “yes.” People who were recommended to the committee were invited by email to respond to the survey, when an email address was given. There may have been some people recommended without an email address provided, but the committee did not need to seek out these candidates because there were enough willing candidates. The committee did not eliminate or add any candidates beyond the above configuration, so no personal preferences were used to determine the slate. The slate appears to be balanced geographically, and according to other known factors (age, sex, library size). Library type is determined by the bylaws http://www.illinoisheartland.org/about-us/ihls-policies/IHLSBylaws.pdf/view?searchterm=bylaws :
a. Eight (8) members from the governing boards of public library members.
b. Two (2) members representing public libraries
c. Three (3) members representing school libraries
d. One (1) member representing special libraries
e. One (1) member representing academic libraries
  
Additional responses that come in to the survey, and interested or recommended candidates who were not selected to appear on the ballot will be given to subsequent nominating committees to help find potential candidates. It is unfortunate that we could not use everyone who was interested, but we were very pleased and surprised to find enough candidates to create a ballot with such strict specifications regarding geography and type of representative. Most selection committees (ILA, for example), hand pick nominees rather than open up the process to a broader audience with an area-wide survey.

Next steps:
Each committee member representing one of the 4 systems will contact the candidates in their system, verify that they are still interested, obtain a final biography for the ballot, and email it to Diana. Each system is to send Diana one email address per line, for each voting library. Diana will import these into survey monkey (again following ILA’s model). The ballot will be a survey sent to those specific emails. It can only be answered once by each respondent, ensuring that the process allows just one vote for voting each member library. As in the past, each entity, school district, library district, etc. gets just one vote no matter how many buildings they have.

4) Set next committee meeting to resolve any issues that arise, and set final ballot. Date to be determined.

5) Adjourned at 3:25 p.m.

Respectfully prepared and submitted by:

Diana Brawley Sussman, Nominating Committee Chair
Carbondale Public Library

Illinois Heartland Library System Transition Board Minutes for 04.07.2011 Meeting

April 26th, 2011 Comments off

Illinois Heartland Library System Transition Board  Minutes for 04.07.2011 Meeting in PDF format.

Delivery Committee Minutes for 02.25-26.2011

March 15th, 2011 Comments off

Delivery Committee Minutes for 02.25-26.2011 (PDF)

Legal Governance and Membership Minutes for Meeting on 03.08.2011

March 10th, 2011 Comments off

Legal Governance and Membership Minutes for Meeting on 03.08.2011 (PDF)

Draft Planning Panel Minutes for 2.10.2011

February 17th, 2011 Comments off

Planning Panel Draft Minutes for 2.10.2011


Southern System Planning
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Knights of Columbus Hall
1501 West Fayette Avenue
Effingham, IL 62401-1972
(217) 342-6565

Attending:

 

LCLS:

JoAnn Nabe, Linda McDonnell, Dianne Steele, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)

LTLS:

Allen Lanham, Nina Pals

RPLS:

Val Green, Amy Ihnen, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt), Nina Wunderlich

SHLS:

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

Absent:

 

LCLS:

Ron Coleman

LTLS:

Rochelle Funderburg, Scott Drone-Silver (Alt), Rosanne Reidner, Anieta Trame (Alt)

RPLS:

Richard Helton

SHLS:

Andrea Witthoft, Susan Yallaly (Alt)

Others Present:

 

LCLS:

Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas, Harriett Zipfel (Alt)

LTLS:

Jan Ison, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins, Donna Schaal

RPLS:

Bev Obert, Doris McKay, Mike Syzmkoski

SHLS:

Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards, Christine Fine

ILS:

Greg McCormick and Lawren Tucker

Audience:

Maria Dent, Sandra Hayes, Janet Hicks, Kay Marshall, Gisa Powers, Lacy Wright, Diane Yeoman

Topic

Process

Start Ups:
Welcome
Purpose
Desired outcome
Agenda/Additions?

Bev Obert welcomed the Planning Panel at 12:50 and apologized for late start time (orig. 12:30).

There were no additions to the agenda.

Minutes of December 2, 2010 Meeting

Minutes of December 2, 2010 as amended. (PDF)

Linda McDonnell noted that Susan’s correct name was ‘Mendelsohn’, not ‘Middleton’ and that ‘meeting as much as possible’ should be changed to ‘meet as much as possible’.
JoAnn Nabe moved and Tom Turner seconded the motion to approve the minutes as amended.
The vote was 13 Ayes, 1 abstention.

Panel members comments from members

Report from Panel & Cooperation Today Comments (PP Doc. 2.10.11 B) (PDF)
SHLS—Marian Albers noted that there had been several questions regarding membership criteria. She had explained to those concerned that criteria are needed for the new system to operate.
RPLS—Val Green reported that school libraries not part of the LLSAP are asking what is the benefit for them in the new system if we don’t offer consulting and CE. Schools are not allowing staff to go to CE and can’t meet the education criteria. They don’t want to lose membership so we need to be clear on what benefits will be.
LTLS – none
LCLS – Diane Steele noted the LCLS members’ concern of small libraries being reduced to a lesser membership level or eliminated from membership completely. There is a fear factor regarding the new standards, particularly regarding the education requirements.
Val Green mentioned that budget restrictions and not offering training will make it more difficult for people to obtain training.
Ellen Popit indicated we haven’t gotten a lot of comments on Cooperation2day and criteria is going to impact membership so we need to encourage members to read the documentation.

Status of Due Diligence

Discussion item at this point in the meeting – action items for the proposals will be after public comment.
Tom presented the Transition Board document from LGM. Board makeup is based on number of libraries in combined systems (1131 total: 39 academic, 231 public, 260 school, 65 special) while also meeting legal requirement for 51% public library trustees. The transition board will be composed of existing system board members and terms will end 6/30. Each system should submit nominations to LGM by 2/24 meeting when Planning Panel will approve members.
Marian asked how soon transition board will be in place. Tom said Transition board would be in effect March 1 and will operate in conjunction with Planning Panel during the transition period.
JoAnn asked what will the two do? The Planning Panel will develop documents, the Transition Board will spend, hire director, conduct the board election, etc. The Transition Board will operate under the same agreement procedures as Planning Panel.
Juliette asked if LGM has discussed the audit required by individual systems in August. That discussion has not yet happened.

Intergovernmental Agreement v.2.1
(PP Doc 2.10.11 D) (PDF)

Tom indicated this is similar to a document developed by the northern system process. It’s been reviewed by Phil Lenzini, lawyer, and is ready for system boards’ approval. Once approved, it will go to ISL. ISL has already seen a preliminary copy.
Elaine asked Lawren if the ISL thought the document was ok. He said yes, if it is similar to the northern systems’ intergovernmental agreement.
Action on this document will be taken during committee reports section of the agenda.

By-Laws of New Organization v 4.1
(PP Doc 2.10.11 E) (PDF version posted with the agenda) (PDF of Phil Lenzini revisions)

Tom Turner reported on changes made in the Bylaws document, by LGM, during the morning meeting. There are additional revisions suggested by Phil Lenzini and an addendum on electronic meetings (PDF) in compliance with the Open Meetings act to be added. The newest version was posted on Basecamp prior to the meeting and will be re-posted on Cooperation Today (tomorrow), with these additional revisions:

Page 1, Article 3 – modified to say “and other counties that may be associated with the System in the future”

Page 7, Section 7 – the listed “Order of Business” section will be replaced with “Standard Order of Business will comply with the Open Meetings Act”

Page 6—Change “Standing Committees (other than Nominating Committee)” to “Standing Committees (other than Nominating Committee for the Board of Directors)” for clarification

Page 8, Article VII – add ”or equivalent professional credentials” to the qualifications.

Val indicated a small issue, that Article 6 is not centered like the rest. Allen asked what does equivalent professional credentials mean for the Executive Director qualifications? He thinks it leaves the door wide open. Bev indicated it is a consideration for international applicants. Lawren, when asked, indicated “professional” may not agree with the legal language. The description of the Executive Director qualifications, p. 5 of Intergovernmental Agreement, agrees with the legal requirements and needs to match the language in the Bylaws. This wording will be changed. The “Meetings via Electronic Means” addendum (PDF) will be added to the Bylaws, with the numbering organization of ‘J’.

Action on this document will be taken during the committee reports section of the Agenda.

System Membership Criteria v5
(PP Doc 2.10.11 F)

Tom Turner reported on changes to the Membership Criteria document made in the morning LGM meeting. This is a challenging document, there have been many concerns expressed about the criteria. The goal is to meet standards set by the state while also trying to accommodate members who have issues meeting the new criteria. The committee discussed the following changes:
Appendix C, p. 9: Staffing, third paragraph, change to “…hire, they can remain at full status two years upon proof that they advertised. A third year…”
Action on this document will be taken during the committee reports section of the Agenda.

Strategic Plan
(PP Doc 2.10.11 G)

Tom Turner reported on changes to the Membership Criteria document made in the morning LGM meeting. This is a challenging document, there have been many concerns expressed about the criteria. The goal is to meet standards set by the state while also trying to accommodate members who have issues meeting the new criteria. The committee discussed the following changes:
Appendix C, p. 9: Staffing, third paragraph, change to “…hire, they can remain at full status two years upon proof that they advertised. A third year…”
Action on this document will be taken during the committee reports section of the Agenda.
Val Greene reported for the committee, highlighted changes committee had made to the Strategic Plan based on comments from the survey.
Strategic Direction II – change Goal 2 to read “Seek funding opportunities to expand local, regional and statewide service.” Add Goal 3 – Leverage system resources to support services.
Strategic Direction IV – Change Goal 3 to read “Identify services that would be more cost effective to provide as a group or negotiate with vendors to offer those services.”
Strategic Direction VI – Change Goal 3 to read “Provide opportunities to network and share services and strategies which enhances education and the promotion of libraries.”
Next task is to go back to the list of suggested services, from surveys, and see what can be included in this document.
The committee will also work on putting together some elements of the Plan of Services. They need to discuss this with the fiscal officers to match the budget proposal with the plan of service.
Juliette indicated due diligence documents includes current years budgets and lists all current staff and salary ranges. However, current plan of service of each system is not part of due diligence.
Val indicated the committee will need current plan of service from each system. Nina indicated some wording inconsistencies in the document.
Action on this document will be taken during the committee reports section of the Agenda.

Resource Sharing Plan v 4
(PP Doc 2.10.11 H)

Karen Bounds presented the changes to the Resource Sharing document.
Page 4, 3.a)1) add “A member library is expected to provide 60% or more of local circulation to their card members.” Also, remove last sentence in that paragraph
Page 4, 3.a)2) add “No library is expected to lend more than 15% of total circulation to cardholders of another single library.” Also, remove last sentence in that paragraph.
Bev had some questions about consistency in those statements. Marian asked f you are one of those libraries that are loaning more than 15%, do you have the right to refuse? How are you going to enforce? Do you call the library? JoAnn Name indicated it is up to the local board. The wording needs to be clearer.
Ellen indicated that the document includes statements that indicate what libraries are expected to do. We know it is difficult to enforce. If it happens, it is up to a local library to address it.
Allen asked about card-issuing vs. home library wording – needs to be consistent. The committee will revise during the break.
Action on this document will be taken during the committee reports section of the Agenda.

Name of New Organization

Ellen asked everyone to review the names we’ve already received, from the surveys. Eliminated from the list were any names with ‘southern,’ ‘downstate,’ ‘central,’ ‘lincoln,’ and words from current systems. The procedure for soliciting more names was discussed. Val said we need to include ‘library system’ for legal reasons. Tom said the LGM committee wanted to suggest “four rivers library system”. LGM would like name suggestions by February 24th from system membership and boards. Local system boards and the Planning Panel are going to choose the name and asked the system directors to submit 5-7 names at the February meeting.
Allen suggested that if we have a hand show vote now we may eliminate some from the list. The names were voted on, with the following names being approved for additional consideration by a majority count.

  • Between the Rivers Library System BRLS
  • Big Bluestem Library System
  • Crossroads
  • Heart of Illinois Library System
  • Land between the Rivers (Ohio & Mississippi)
  • Pioneer Trails System
  • White Oak Library System (state tree)
  • Four Rivers Library System

Public Comment

Lacy Wright asked that the Planning Panel consider changing the reciprocal borrowing billing period (Resource Access Policy) from 6 weeks to 8 weeks. Eight weeks is not enough time to try and collect from the patron. Ellen asked if better to use the phrase ‘timely fashion’ but Lacy indicated 8 weeks would be more definite.
Gisa Powers stated that she likes the four rivers library system name.
Kay Marshal thought that ‘between four rivers’ might describe the area.
Sandi Hayes asked if membership criteria includes ‘grandfathering’ of current directors. What happens if directors can’t meet critera in 5 years? Tom Turner pointed out that all system members will be grandfathered into the new system and Appendix C indicates new criteria should be met only when there is a change of director.
Break at 2:17.

Report from Subcommittees

Legal, Governance & Membership

  • Transition Board Make – Up
  • Intergovernmental Agreement v2.1
  • By-Laws of the New Organization 4.1
  • Membership Criteria v 5

A motion was made by Marion, second by Val, to approve the Transition Board Makeup document. During discussion, Allen stated he wanted to be recorded that he thinks the 1 board position for academics will marginalize academic libraries. In the entire state, there will only be 2 academics on any system board. Tom indicated that some board members can be dual representatives from multiple libraries.

There was discussion about whether the new board can change the bylaws to allow different representation. This group is trying to get a transition board in place – a new board can make changes. Elaine and Diane stated that once a new entity is in place and has a board seated, it is their responsibilities to determine what the vision is for the new organization; this is not cast in stone.

The motion to adopt the document passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL)

A motion was made by Allen, second by Tom, to refer the Intergovernmental Agreement (PDF) to the system boards for comment and approval. There was no additional discussion. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL).

A motion was made by Tom, second by Val, to refer the newly-revised ByLaws (PDF)to the system boards for comment and approval. Tom then amended the motion to include the Resolution on Electronic Meetings document (PDF)as an addendum, Val agreed to this amendment. In additional discussion, Marian asked if the change regarding the wording on counties was to allow for other systems or libraries joining. It was indicated this wording would make this a possibility. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL).

A motion was made by Tom, second by Nina, to refer the newly-revised Membership Criteria to the system boards for comment and approval. This needs to be done for the March Planning Panel meeting. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL)

Tom indicated that the LGM committee plans to work on the following at their next meeting: ISL Plan of Service Application, hiring a new director, organizational chart, job descriptions, and personnel policy.

Delivery

Leslie indicated the Delivery Committee had met with its working group in January and the goal for the Delivery Committee is to determine the best process going forward.

Elaine discussed these components being worked on:

  1. Prior to 7/1/2011, would like to initiate a delivery schedule based on volume. Largest libraries, with largest volumes, will still get 5 day a week delivery. For the remainder: Receives 500+ items or more per week = 4 day, 300-499 = 3 day, 50 -299 = 2 day, less than 50 on demand/mail/. This is the base starting point.
  2. In order to plan for revisions, need counts by delivery drivers of items in/out of each library on routes. Will have to be changed as data changes, Right now based on FY 2010 numbers.
  3. CAT (Community Access Terminal) will be where several libraries in a community can form a CAT and increase their frequency of delivery by increasing the volume delivered to a single site. A letter will be sent to the libraries offering this opportunity – not predetermined by the system. Libraries would be responsible for formation and must remain a CAT for a year.
  4. DOG (Delivery on the G0). Libraries will be asked to presort and bundle for others who come later on delivery routes. This could be implemented soon.
  5. The delivery point needs to be as close to the door as possible. That will minimize driver time spend at each stop. It will be a requirement for keys and access codes be given to system. If not this, have an alternate drop spot or drop box. School deliveries, unless controlled by volume, will all be delivered to school office to save time. Drivers will identify libraries that can improve their delivery access. Letters will go to the library from the current executive director.

Jan asked if the Delivery Committee report will be posted to basecamp and if it could be voted on for implementation. Also, has the committee looked at outsourcing.

A motion was made by Elaine, second by Diane to take delivery recommendations (PDF)to local boards for comment and approval. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL)

The committee will continue its work by making a budget recommendation soon. It was noted that the current buildings are paid for and that as the LLSAPS merge delivery patterns will change.

Resource Sharing
Resource Sharing Plan v 4

Resource Sharing committee reviewed their revisions to the Resource Sharing Plan, which included the following changes:
Page 3, 2b and page 4, 3e change time from 6 to 8 weeks.
Page 4 3e move subsections 1 and 2 to 2b on page 3.
Consistently use card issuing/home library.
Page 4 3a and b change “restrict access” to “restrict reciprocal borrowing”.
The motion was made by Diane, second by Nina, to take the Resource Sharing Plan, with revisions (PDF), to local boards for comment and approval, with a March deadline. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL)

Karen indicated further work for the committee includes asking LLSAP group for budget information as well as a possible state grant to help LLSAPs migrate to a new platform.

The committee asked that LGM work on a grievance policy for libraries and personnel to bring grievances to the new entity.

Strategic Planning
Strategic Plan

The motion was made by Valerie, second by Linda to take the Strategic Plan, with revisions, (PDF)to local boards for comment and approval by February meeting. The motion passed unanimously (Ayes – ALL)

Val indicated the committee is going to look at combined budgets, services to see where money comes from, and surveys to see if we will meet membership wishes.

Jan asked that ISL prepare the plan of service documentation as soon as possible so we can work on preparation.

Public Comment on Committee reports

Allen asked who is discussing to be sure we are in compliance regarding personnel. Are there any dates for possible layoffs, etc. Jan indicated the four directors have some basic beginning assumptions but are not ready to discuss yet. The directors want to be as fair as they can and want to offer Cobra. Closing systems may take longer than June 30. Looking at personnel policies. System directors are trying to lead this. Appreciate everyone who has stayed with the systems. Goal is to not disrupt people as much as possible while looking at budgets in a different way.

Juliette said there is no time period that employees have to get notified.

Kay Marshall loves the delivery plan, please include limitations on weight in delivery containers

Doris did put up agenda on coop2day with links to all documents.

Agenda items for next meeting

Jan explained there will be a two-day meeting on 2/24 and 2/25. It will be a working meeting, with times for committee breakouts, large panel meetings, evenings perhaps. After discussion, the group indicated this format:

2/24 – start at 10-12 with committees, lunch, panel 1-2, committees 2-4, panel 4-6, free evening.

2/25 – start at 9-11 with panel. Holiday Inn asks us to be done by 11:30. Hotel rooms will be in Country Inn & Suites.

Val asked in the interest of the public let the time of the public action be specified, so we are in compliance with the open meetings act.

Meeting and Facilitation Review

Plus++++
Allen said documentation was very good

Jan said northern systems not having this rich discussion it’s important that our panel is multi-type.

Tom said we don’t always get along but there is still comradery—we all want the same thing.

Diane indicated this is the place to voice opinions.

Done early

Good public input

Lunch great

Deltas—-
Remember markers and paper

Upon motion by Elaine, second by Diane, the meeting was adjourned at 4:08.

 

(PDF version)

Planning Panel Minutes for 12.02.2010 Final version

February 17th, 2011 Comments off

Planning Panel Minutes for 12.02.2010 Final version (PDF)

Resource Sharing Subcommittee Minutes from 8.30.2010

January 12th, 2011 Comments off

Resource Sharing Subcommittee Minutes from 8.30.2010 (PDF)

Categories: Resources Tags: ,

Minutes for the 11.10.2010 Meeting of the Planning Panel

January 4th, 2011 Comments off

Minutes of the November 10, 2010

Southern System Planning Panel

Place:

Decatur Public Library
130 N Franklin
Decatur, IL

Date:

November 10, 2010

Attending:

LCLS: Linda McDonnell, JoAnn Nabe, Dianne Steele, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)
LTLS: Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Rosanne Reidner
RPLS: Val Green, Richard Helton, Amy Ihnen, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt),
SHLS: Marian Albers, Karen Bounds, Tom Turner, Susan Yallaly (Alt)

Absent:

LCLS: Ron Coleman, Harriett Zipfel (Alt)
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Scott Drone-Silver (Alt), Anita Trame (Alt)
RPLS: Brenda Larison (Alt), Nina Wunderlich
SHLS: Arlene Dueker (Alt), Andrea Witthoft

Others Present:

LCLS: Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas,
LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins
RPLS: Bev Obert, Doris McKay, Mike Syzmkoski
SHLS: Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards

ISL: Anne Craig and Lawren Tucker

Audience: Ann Adkesson, Debbie Campbell, Jan Dungey, Sarah Garley, Sandra Hayes, Janet Hicks, Deanne Holshouser, Libby Letterly, Susan Mendelsohn, Joan Rhoades, Suzy Saunders, Nancy Simpson, Cheryl Soerensen, Miranda Sowers, Lacey Wright, Diane Yeoman.

Introductions began at: 1:30 pm following meetings of the Subcommittees and a tour of the Rolling Prairie Library System headquarters.

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions

Start Up
Welcome
Review of Purpose and
Desired Outcomes
Agenda/Additions
Approve Minutes of
October 13th Meeting
Affirm changes to planning document

Bev Obert started the meeting with introductions and welcome to everyone, asked everyone to please sign in, hoped everyone got a tour of RPLS.
Additions to agenda: future meeting dates
Minutes of the Oct. 14 meeting had no corrections, Val moved to accept, second by Diane, approved.
V. 6 Planning Process document (pdf) is now out with additions to timeline.
Discussion on member vote in February – if system boards approve resolution to dissolve, need to get information out to members. Should we remove member vote from the timeline? Is it a check on progress being made? LTLS put out the dissolution for comment and should have a good idea of the membership’s perspective by the end of the month. It’s not a vote but a ratification of what we’re doing. Tom said LGM committee recommended that’s what we do – ratification by members in the timeline instead of ‘vote’.
Timeline is to have resolution to ISL by 2/1 and it seems backward to have the member vote after that date. Also, members need to have some answers. Dissolution resolution has to be done by Feb. 1 – then give members the option to ratify what has already been passed by the systems. March 1 will be the new deadline for ratification by members. Tom made the motion, Karen 2nd, unanimously approved.

Report on Issues/
Concerns from
Members

Jan facilitated discussion of C2Day comments from members about the timeline and finances. Some concern expressed by members asking what happens if they vote ‘no’. General discussion followed about planning panel members going out to members to explain financial reality, offering to assist in delivering the message about scaling back on expenses. An explanation is needed by system to individual library boards about what is happening.
LCLS Because of economics, no funding, some of systems have reluctantly eliminated consulting, may have to look at resource-sharing & delivery for potential cuts as well.
LTLS Some comments on what it will cost, would like to keep consulting, intergovernmental agreement to hire consultants? Some are unaware of what is going on, as much as we try not all libraries paying attention to the process.
ShLS is publicizing something every week – so far no comments
RPLS Commitment to visiting boards. In talking to libraries, question they have is ‘will this thing work’?
The sooner we all start thinking as ‘one entity’ then we will all be the same. When we do that, we can continue to provide good services, have a foundation for going forward.

Communication
Discussion
Review of SP&D
session

Bev reviewed recent SP&D meeting, session about communications emphasizing that communication is crucial. Our communication is being done through C2D. Key issue is systems have to merge and focus on delivery and LLSAP. Stakeholders – library members, boards, users, SOS, ISL, elected officials, local officials, library associations, vendors, anyone who touches the system is a stakeholder – we have to know what they want. They have to know if it’s going to work, what services they will have – they want straight information. Officials want to be elected, with happy library users, important to save dollars. Members want to know how it will affect them, have to make sure that we as individuals and panel can communicate clearly. If we do it right they won’t notice a change. It’s important to update groups as much as possible, assure/disseminate progress made so far, set up meetings with libraries to discuss process. May not hurt to involve media, let them know what is going on/why, what we’re trying to do. Need to put out to wider media – but we don’t a lot of detail to put out right now.

Report from
Subcommittees

Strategic Plan

Val presented info about the Strategic Planning survey, The committee spent a lot of time reviewing results, noticed that schools lowest in response, ShLS lowest response rate, public libraries highest response rate. Comments numbered in the hundreds, tried to pull best wording from the survey. Key terms for mission were: sharing of resources, enable libraries to provide better service, communication of library agencies. Committee developed a beginning draft mission: community of multitype libraries developing partnerships and sharing resources in pursuit of excellent service. Mission came about quickly, still working on vision/values for next meeting. Customer satisfaction was the highest value.

Jan gave a powerpoint of many of the survey responses – % by system, % by type of library, pop surveyed, majority 3-7500. Delivery data is interesting – libraries under 500 population ok with 2 day, 4 day/wk is least popular. One of the things the committee wants to do is a press release, give number who responded, state that the systems merging are compatible. Jan thinks this is a really comprehensive response. Need to include more comments – if the powerpoint goes on C2D, people may not understand context. Usually when you put out results of surveys, it says ‘majority’, ‘minority’ – make it clear in the powerpoint if comments are ‘majority, few, etc.’.

If there is a weakness in the survey, it’s how we received data about a vision statement. We have to go back to the survey more than once to help us figure out the vision. In structuring the vision of what we’re going to do, don’t want to leave out other services we should offer. Would like feedback from other groups – visions for future years may allow us to build on the two priorities – want to include what’s important.

Legal, Governance &
Membership

Bev indicated the committee is presenting discussion, not recommendations. There will be a ‘Board Representation’ document put up, for voting at next meeting. This is Option 4, with 15 members:
2 Public Library Trustees from each system board
2 Public Librarians
3 School Librarians
1 Special Librarian
1 Academic Librarian
Best option for serving the new area with 260 schools, 231 publics, 65 specials, 38 academic. Committee will propose process for appointing the first year board and for staggered terms thereafter. Document will be on Basecamp.

Headquarters discussion: Committee thinks the best geographically logical location is Effingham if central office is needed. Final decision will be made by the new board and is depending on selling of buildings. Recommending that we stay in current building until sold, look at possibility of leasing space, etc.

The committee also revisited the due diligence issue – finance managers have put info on CD but it will be uploaded on C2D with a new tab added to site, in pdf format. Documents should be sent to: Doris McKay.

The committee will refer other ‘contract’ issues to committees for discussion: OCLC & E-resources – to Resource-Sharing and recommend that the RS committee keep those in place
Plinkit – to Strategic Planning, recommend to keep in place as long as possible
IMRF – don’t have the problems we thought, will have some rules we will have to look at but will likely recommend not dropping IMRF.
Discussed membership but no decisions. Looking at tiered situation for membership (staffing issues, inequity with size, finances, have to look at some tiering of membership)
Timeline for possible new Board – will have better idea in December but may want them appointed earlier.
Question about how will we get new board members – committee is looking at a possible structure.
Committee also developing draft documents – search committee, bylaws, etc. for new board.

Resource Sharing

JoAnn indicated committee reviewed previously approved LLSAP capital reserve accounts document. RS committee is asking LLSAP working group to clarify some of the language, will have that for the next meeting. The committee reviewed survey data, were pleased resource-sharing was so high as a value. The RS committee discussed the possibility of two-tiered resourcesharing plan as well. The next task is to look at Resource Sharing policies of all four systems, hope to have a draft document ready for review for the next meeting. In answer to question at the end about what tiered membership means, Ellen said in relation to membership with resource-sharing access– that there might be a two-tiered resource-sharing standard. Two-tiered membership might include who would be required to do reciprocal access (special library collections), etc. In regards to actual membership, some of the small libraries don’t have resources to hire/meet standards, need to look at membership standards, two-tiered approach.

Delivery

Allen said committee reviewed past work, steps forward , continue to have some discrepancies of data across systems. Instead of 5 day, looking at 4 day as highest frequency. Any library receiving 500+ items weekly would get at least 4 day/week. 300-500 3 day weekly, 50-299 2 day, mail for those under 50. The committee continues to look at community dropoff, which favors highest volume in community. Preference to deliver to site with most volumes but libraries could decide. If dropoff is insufficient, multiple dropoffs would be considered. The committee is also developing materials for an RFP for a commercial vendor – cost quote – quality and quantity. They have another meeting planned with the working group to determine possible routes, no overlap on borders. Also looking at cross-over routes of vans, might be consequence if libraries close and don’t tell us. Dick talked about the US Mail option box which at a media rate is mailed at a half-price rate. The committee is discussing implementing change to 4,3,2, day and mail delivery in January, to see how things work out. Who pays return mail cost is not yet decided. Also if funds are flat-lined, perhaps everyone will have to pay something for delivery. Know that big libraries may require 5 day/wk, will look at this in the next meeting. Academic libraries have been mailing to patrons – each system also may mail now. Is there concern that this might slow the return of material? Libraries might hold on to material, instead of spending money on boxes. As far as an idea of number of routes, vans, drivers, the committee needs more data, library by library what volume has been. Last time mentioned 3 hubs, word is there may not be any new money, don’t have money to move building hubs until they all get sold. Allen: all committees need to meet together, with the building/hub issue.

Public Comment on Committee reports

– Comfort level at how everyone is working together. How counting 500 coming or going only? Both ways
-How are you defining community dropoff? What are you using for volume – last year’s? How often assessing – using 2010 figures, will reassess yearly? Community hubs could be school or public – or several places within the community. One with the highest volume. Community dropoff – multiple towns? Still looking at all options while trying to cut costs.
-Issue raised at ILSDO – archives of all data that needs to be retained as systems consider merge. Financial – no money for headquarters? What happens to past systems archival material?

Timeline of Key
Milestones

Delivery will give ‘progress’ report in December, due diligence documents discussed.
Feb. 1 – dissolution to ISL
March 1 – ratification
April 4 – ISL application, intergovernmental agreement
June 1 – area&per cap grant application due
Add date of new board? Feb/Mar at latest

Agenda items for next
meeting

Dates for next meeting
Dec. 2 at LTLS
Discussion about January-doing a vtel for planning panel, separate vtels or phone calls at other times May have to look at a 2-day meeting to finish up everything. Aren’t going to get done otherwise. ½ day com/pp, ½ day comm./pp – January meeting? Planning a face to face with vtel on hold? Would like to meet in person, working with maps, etc. Directors will send out poll for dates

December meeting agenda items:
New Board decision – solidification – discuss tasks of new board?
What Resource Sharing will look like in the new system?
Draft of strategic plan – mission, vision, values
Finance piece – need to know what money we will have & plan – who will handle it.
RS/delivery groups will need to decide – before finances can be determined, also tied to hiring exec. dir
If we wait too long for Exec. Dir hire, have to handle employees, benefits, etc. Discussion of buildings? What happens if buildings are sold, if we become a new entity, who gets liabilities and assets – new entity.
Will current system/directors stay in effect until July 1? Yes, even with new board/hire
Strategic Planning committee may merge into developing annual plan, as result of what they are doing
New board has intergovernmental agreement with four existing boards – plan of service runs through June 30? Have to take a look at how this will all be handled. Need information on intergovernmental agreements that should be in place

Meeting and
Facilitation Review

Plus:
Accomplished lot in subcommittee
2 hour subcommittee helps
Report backs are useful
Document list was helpful (what was needed)
Appreciate ISL reps coming to meeting
Lunch was good

Delta:
More time for subcommittees

(PDF) version.

Minutes for the 10.13.2010 Meeting of the Planning Panel

January 4th, 2011 Comments off

Minutes of the October 13, 2010

Southern System Planning Panel

Place:

Lewis & Clark Library System
6725 Goshen Road
Edwardsville, IL

Date:

October 13, 2010

Attending:

LCLS: Ron Coleman, JoAnn Nabe, Dianne Steele, Harriett Zipfel (Alt)
LTLS: Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Rosanne Reidner,
RPLS: Val Green, Richard Helton, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt), Nina Wunderlich
SHLS: Marian Albers, Arlene Dueker (Alt), Tom Turner, Susan Yallaly (Alt)

Absent:

LCLS: Linda McDonnell
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Scott Drone‐Silver (Alt), Anita Trame (Alt)
RPLS: Amy Ihnen, Brenda Larison (Alt)
SHLS: Karen Bounds, Andrea Witthoft

Others Present:

LCLS: Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)
LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins
RPLS: Bev Obert, Doris McKay, Mike Syzmkoski
SHLS: Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards, Christine ine

ISL: Ann Craig and Vandella Brown

Audience: Vince Nicholas Bennyhoff, Stacy Bond, Susan Carr, Chris Dawdy, Horst Driesner, Anita Driver, Edie Elliott, Judy Groom, Janet Hicks, Larry Jones, Cheri Schuler‐Faust, Sherry Highley, Tina Hubert, Kay Marshall, Susan Mendlesohn, Sue Pearson, Julia Pernicka, Michelle Petersen, Peggy Pick, Jill Pifer, Donna Vesper, David Voyles, Lacy Wright, Jan Zuke

Introductions began at: 1:10

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions

Start Up
Welcome
Purpose
Desired Outcome
Agenda/Additions?
Approve Minutes of
September 14th Meeting

Leslie Bednar facilitated the introductions. Leslie asked if there were any additions to the agenda. No additions were made.

Approve Minutes of September 14th Meeting

Leslie asked if there were any changes to the September 14, 2010 minutes. Andrea Witthoft was absent and Scott Drone-Silver’s name was misspelled. Diane Steele moved and Tom Turner seconded the motion to approve the minutes with the requested changes. The motion carried.

Task: Change the minutes and post to Basecamp and Cooperation2Day.

Report on Issues/
Concerns from
Members

Ellen Popit facilitated the reporting on issues and concerns from members.

LC: JoAnn reported that members are concerned about the location of the new system building, how much money will be saved by the merger, having consulting at the local level, what services there will be for non‐LLSAP members, loss of autonomy, and that small library concerns won’t be heard.

LT: There were no new concerns.

RP: Members are concerned that Cooperation Today is not being kept up-to-date. Other concerns include autonomy of libraries and that outside facilitation may be needed.

SH: Concerns are similar to LC: buildings, future money needs, and how to plan ahead.

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

Jan and Bev reviewed their visit to the Alliance Board meeting. They presented an overview of the southern system’s merger process and the progress made so far. An invitation to join the southern systems was extended. They were not asked a lot of questions and found the board very non-committal. There was a discussion on whether the panel should send an invitation to join the southern systems to each of the other systems. Another option would be to talk with colleagues from other systems. Suggested asking ISL to list the address for Cooperation Today in their weekly newsletter to keep everyone informed.

Bev updated the panel on the progress of the northern systems. Their planning panel is in place with four members from each system (director and 3 board members). They have created three committees: communication, future of library systems, and governance. FIO Partners has been selected as their consultant. Their panel is depending on the consultant to do a lot of the work for them. The formal agreement made by the northern libraries is non-binding.

Cooperation Today Comments

There were two comments on Cooperation Today: (1) Couldn’t find the updated planning process document and (2) Statements supporting library systems.

Nina Wunderlich noted that not everything is getting published to Cooperation Today. Our member libraries aren’t getting enough information. It was decided that minutes, flipchart notes, approved subcommittee minutes, the updated planning process document, and any other type of definitive information should be added to the site. The panel agreed that suggestive information not be added to Cooperation Today. The panel would like to add a place on the site for questions.

Report on fiscal data requested at
August 12 meeting

System fiscal officers Juliette Douglas (LCLS), Ramona Rollins (LTLS), Mike Szymkoski (RPLS) and Christine Fine (SHLS) reviewed assets, liabilities, and fund balances as of June 30, 2010.

Fiscal Data:

SHLS – Governmental funds only
Assets: 1,500,000
Liabilities: 200,000
Fund balance: 1,300,000

RPLS– Governmental funds only
Assets: 900,000
Liabilities: 200,000
Fund balance: 700,000

LCLS – Governmental funds only
Assets: 738,700
Liabilities: 100,400
Fund balance: 638,900

LTLS – Governmental funds only
Assets: 584,600
Liabilities: 76,700
Fund balance: 507,935

SHW– Proprietary Fund
(no separate account for automation)
Assets: 43,000
Liabilities: 600
Fund balance: 42,400

RPLS– Proprietary Fund
(Interprise fund computer development)
Assets: 847,000
Liabilities: 16,000
Fund balance: 831,000

LCLS– Proprietary Fund (Gatenet)
Assets: 401,000
Liabilities: 37,300
Fund balance: 364,000

LTLS– Proprietary Fund
3 funds—Automation, Cooperative service fund (training), Automation
equity fund (charge for ports)
Assets: 947,881
Liabilities: 35,890
Fund balance: 911,991

No capital assets are included in the governmental figures but they are in the proprietary figures. Panel members asked for current building appraisal amounts: RPLS $410,000, LTLS $500,000 (no formal appraisal
has been done), SHLS $1,800,000, LCLS $2,000,000 (no formal appraisal has been done). Diane thanked the fiscal officers of each system for presenting the information in an understandable way. There was a round of applause.

Outside Expertise/Facilitation,Legal, Financial, Transportation

The directors developed a report to explain when outside help might be needed and presented it to panel members. They feel it is important that expertise is obtained in a fiscally responsible manner. Future needs may include a facilitator, fiscal expertise, legal advice, transportation expertise, and others. The process is going well now but directors may need to be more involved and unable to facilitate in the future. Subcommittee, directors, or the planning panel would write a brief proposal of what expertise is needed and the requirements for the expertise. Proposals would be brought to the panel for approval with at least 2 potential contractors. Cost estimates should also be included. Once the panel approves the proposal, the group that presented the proposal is authorized to select the contractor with an agreed upon dollar amount. System directors agreed to put together a small list of potential contractors in various subject areas.

The document recommends using per capita percentage to divide costs. It was proposed that the panel agree to share costs equally and that the revised “Outside Expertise” document be taken to system boards for approval. Nina Wunderlich made the motion and Rosanne Reidner seconded. Passed unanimously.

Task: System directors will make a small list of potential contractors.
Task: Change the document “Outside Expertise” to share costs evenly and post on Basecamp.

Report from committees

Report from committees
Strategic Plan

Val gave an update on the survey. The committee missed the projected distribution date but is still on target for receiving the results. The current version will be sent out tomorrow to system directors to debug with the final version out within two weeks. Please encourage member libraries to complete. Subcommittee needs listserv addresses from each system with an estimate of the number that will complete the survey. Survey participants will have two weeks to complete the survey.

Task: Committee needs listserv addresses from each system and the number subscribed.

Committee asked for suggestions on how to make the survey successful. Allen suggested sending out an email announcing the coming of the survey including the amount of time it will take. Also suggested saying it will take 10 minutes instead of 15 to get a better response rate. Tom encouraged everyone to get planning panel updates out to their members. All boards should be getting reports on panel activities. The committee plans to meet before the next panel meeting to work on survey results so they can be presented at the November meeting.

Allen is worried that people won’t know what LLSAP stands for. There was discussion on whether i‐Share libraries will answer yes to the LLSAP question. Jan is going to make changes so it will be clear.

Break

Legal, Governance & Membership

Tom explained that due to State Library’s timeline, each system board has to make a resolution to dissolve and merge into the new system at their November or December board meetings so the board minutes can be approved in January. The resolution will be posted to Basecamp tomorrow. The subcommittee feels that the interim board needs to be in place by April so that a director and central office staff can be hired by May.

A list of due diligence information will be posted to Basecamp by Friday. This list is to be completed by December 31, 2010. All information will be burned to cds and distributed to system directors and panel members. The committee feels that it is not necessary to have an outside person analyze the information since information revealed will not stop the merger process. The panel is going to have conference calls before the next meeting to put together a list of decision points with assigned time frames.

Timelines:
List of Assets: Due Dec. 1, 2010
Due Diligence information: Due Dec. 31, 2010
Resolution: Due February 1, 2011
Member vote to ratify merger: Feb or March, 2011
If needed—Intergovernmental Agreements between systems: Due April 4, 2011
Application to Merge: Due April 4, 2011
Bylaws and Plan of Service: Due May 2, 2011
Annual Per capita and Area Grants: Due June 1, 2011
Marian asked if the makeup of the new board was decided. So far the committee has discussed a 15 member board. The law requires that the majority of board members be from public libraries. There would be two public library board members from each system for a total of 8. The other 7 positions are still being discussed. One suggestion is to have 1 large library, 2 academics, 2 schools, and 2 specials. The subcommittee has had discussions about having an interim board for the first year. One of the next recommendations will be the location of the new system headquarters.

Tom read the resolution: We, the board of _____System, do resolve that the _____ System will terminate effective June 30, 2011. Furthermore, we resolve to merge into a new single system that includes Lewis and Clark Library System, Lincoln Trail Libraries System, Rolling Prairie Library System, and Shawnee Library System, effective July 1, 2011.

It was proposed to take the resolution to system boards for approval. Tom Turner made the motion and Diane Steele seconded. Motion passed.

Resource Sharing

Nina stated that the committee has an advantage since the LLSAP managers have been meeting regularly. LLSAP managers presented the resource sharing committee with two documents for approval: “LLSAP Basic Philosophy” and “LLSAP Capital Reserve Accounts”. Both documents were approved by the committee. The basic philosophy document will be the cornerstone for the resource sharing committee. The LLSAP managers group will be adding someone from each system to their working group.

Jan suggested adding an additional sentence to the second bullet in the capital reserve document that the new board will determine the amount of system funding allocated to LLSAPs. It was also suggested to add “LLSAP” before the word “governance”.

Allen Lanham motioned to add “LLSAP” before the word “governance” to the second bullet in the capital reserve document and to add a second sentence: “Additionally, the new system board will determine the amount of system area and per capita funding that will be allocated to support LLSAP services.” Diane Steele seconded the motion. Motion passed.

Task: Make changes to the document “LLSAP Capital Reserve Accounts”.

Delivery

A map was projected showing various levels of delivery frequencies. Marian explained there is more work to be done in determining what volume constitutes high, medium and low. A working group made up of delivery staff from each system met via telephone conference. Dick commended them on their work and felt it was a good exchange of ideas. Ideas for cost savings, vehicle maintenance, vehicle age and size were discussed. One suggestion was to sell advertising space on delivery vehicles. Everyone agreed they need bigger vans or box trucks. They discovered that every system does things pretty much the same with some differences in sorting.

The committee suggests having three hubs to save overhead on a fourth building. Possible hub locations might be Benton, Tuscola, and the Highland area. A November meeting will be held with delivery staff and drivers to see if they think it is feasible. Low volume libraries may end up having materials delivered through the mail. The committee is also looking at sorting in the library to streamline delivery of items. The possibility that some drivers could drive directly to one location and back has also been discussed. Having one stop for a town has also been discussed. Other libraries in the community would have to pick up their delivery at the drop off location. Shawnee has a teamster’s union contract and may need legal advice on how to handle that contract. Nina W. asked if schools are considered braches in a town? The answer is yes. Allen stated that the three hub locations were proposed without the knowledge of where a system might reside.

Public Comment on Committee reports

Comments

Jill Pifer—Will delivery information be given to the committee ahead of time so they can be ready? Marian replied that they will send the maps to them in the next couple of days so they can study them.

Kay Marshall—Have you mapped out which deliveries run out of which hubs? Dick replied that is what the working group is going to do. Allen stated they just needed to put something on the table to start.

Tina Hubert— Thank everyone for generosity of time given. When talking about what information to share, she thinks that real information like the zillane comparison document should be included. Not recommendations but factual information only. Tina suggested a resource section on Cooperation Today where factual information used to make decisions is posted.

What committee is doing the budget? LGM committee is responsible. What happens if we don’t meet our deadline dates? Allen answered that everyone keeps going.

Tina Hubert reminded the panel that systems may have to do per capita grants separately if deadlines are not met.

Diane Steele made the motion that if we don’t meet the deadlines, we will keep going. Rosanne Reidner seconded. Passed unanimously.

Elaine Streingrubey thanked ISL for sending the document with guidelines and dates and thanked committees for taking on this project.

Anita Driver asked about the board makeup. Bev replied that it hasn’t been decided yet. We know it will be 15 members and the majority must be public library trustees (8). The other 7 positions are still being decided. Jan asked that the word “rotation” not be used.

Jill Pifer asked what committee is responsible for naming the new system. LGM committee is responsible. A suggestion was made to put a question on the survey for name ideas.

Joan Roads doesn’t think naming the system should be a contest—just suggestions. She is surprised how far ahead we are compared to the north. Thinks the north’s process is difficult due to night meetings and the fact that everyone is at difference locations.

Maria Dent: Agreed with Joan on how far ahead we are.

LLSAP Funding & Reserves

Topic was covered in the fiscal reports.

Timeline of Key Milestones

Jan suggested that a visual chart of all timelines would be very helpful.
Everyone agreed.

Task: Combine all committee timelines into one document.

Juliette suggested adding a place to mark items as accomplished.

Agenda items for next meeting

Need to have more information about hiring an expert. Bev will revise the document and make a list of possible experts.
Reports on boards passing resolutions.
Review combined timeline.

Timeline needs to be added to Basecamp and Cooperation Today.

Meeting and Facilitation Review

Next meeting will be November 10 at Rolling Prairie Library System. The following meeting is be December 2, at Lincoln Trail Libraries System.

Plus/Delta
Plus:
Decisions were made
Committees accomplished a lot in morning
A lot accomplished
LCLS did a good job with meeting setup and food
Great Facility
Good that Anne and Vandella attended
Good audience size
Facilitators did a good job

Delta:
Need more committee time

Tasks for Facilitators:
Revise expert document and compile a list of experts
Get minutes out faster
Get more information up on Cooperation Today
Try to reorganize Basecamp
Work on upcoming meeting schedule

Anne invited everyone to the directors meeting tomorrow at Lincoln Library in Springfield.

Ron Coleman made a motion and Diane Steele seconded to adjourn the meeting at 4:35 p.m.

(PDF) version.

Draft Minutes for the 12.02.2010 meeting of the Planning Panel at Lincoln Trails Libraries System.

December 30th, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Place:

Lincoln Trail Libraries System
1704 West Interstate Drive
Champaign, IL

Date:

December 2, 2010

Attending:

LCLS: Ron Coleman, JoAnn Nabe, Dianne Steele, Harriett Zipfel (Alt)
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Rosanne Reidner, Anita Trame
RPLS: Richard Helton, Amy Ihnen, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt), Nina Wunderlich
SHLS: Marian Albers, Karen Bounds, Tom Turner

Absent:

LCLS: Linda McDonnell
LTLS: Scott Drone-Silver (Alt)
RPLS: Val Green, Brenda Larison (Alt)
SHLS: Arlene Dueker (Alt), Andrea Witthoft, Susan Yallaly (Alt)

Others Present:

LCLS: Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)
LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins

RPLS: Bev Obert, Doris McKay, Mike Syzmkoski
SHLS: Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards, Christine Fine

ISL: Anne Craig and Lawren Tucker

Audience: Eleanore Brown, Judy Groom, Marsha Grove, Sandra Hayes, Tina Hubert, Casey Jones, Beth Kent, Kay Marshall, Susan Mendelsohn, Joan Rhoades, Barbara Rhodes, Sarah S Sagen, Molly Scanlan, Diane Yeoman.

Introductions began at: 1:30 pm following meetings of the Subcommittees and a tour of the Lincoln Trails Libraries System headquarters.

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions

Start Up
Welcome
Review of Purpose and
Desired Outcome
Agenda/Additions?
Approve Minutes of
November 10th Meeting

Jan Ison welcomed everyone to LTLS.

In reviewing the agenda there were no additions requested.

The minutes from the November 10th (PDF) meeting were reviewed.
Action on the November 10th minutes: Tom Turner moved that the minutes be approved. Marian Albers seconded the motion. The motion passed with all ayes. Nayes- none.

Report on Issues/
Concerns from
Members

Bev asked for comments received from the membership.

ShLS – Marian Albers reported that at the SILNET meeting that members expressed concerns about membership standards and and delivery. They also had questions about what would happen to the LLSAP if the system dissolved. Marian made the suggestion that the systems have a trustee day to discuss the entire process. Arlene at Kaskaskia CC would be willing to serve food. Ellen Popit addressed LLSAP concerns. Vtel to other systems. List to look at Vtel.

LCLS – Diane Steele was concerned that voting should not be consensus because of the important issues coming up. Recently in ratification. Nayes were not called for and there needs to be a Roll call vote.
Harriette, LCLS members concerned about loosing representation. May need a neutral person to help. Libraries are already hurting and feeling added costs due to lack of consultants in LCLS. The consequences to the libraries Diane Steele indicated that there were concerns about new board’s make up.

RPLS – Amy Inhen indicated that RPLS members felt that all Subcommittees’ minutes should all be posted on CooperationToday. Delivery committee members should be required to go on a route. The members also want CooperationToday updated more frequently. Panel was working well and members fears had been alleviated.

LTLS – Rosanne Reidner indicated that there had been no feed back on the dissolution.

Others
Dick Helton – Delivery committee had received Marsha Burgner’s email, and she was concerned about libraries having a choice in geographic communities for delivery.
Harriette Zipfel – Libraries are concerned about the added costs to the libraries because of Community Delivery and the need to allocate additional space for delivery. There is also concern about how Automation is funded differently in different systems, as how will we be serving the un-served? Will there be a statewide card?

Allen Lanham reported that he will be reporting to the ILA board on our process.

Marian Albers moved and Diane Steele seconded the motion that Allen Lanham be named as the Southern System Planning Panel liaison to the ILA board.

A voice vote was called: Ayes – all. Nayes- none. Abstentions -none.

Action on the roll call votes: Allen Lanham moved that all financial, policy and personnel matters be put to a roll call vote, and that all other votes be roll call when any member asks for a roll call vote. Ron Coleman seconded the motion.

A voice vote was called: Ayes – all. Nayes- none. Abstentions –none. The motion passed.

Mission, Vision and Values

Rosanne Reidner presented the draft of the Mission, Vision and Values and asked that it be taken to systems for comments. [See Mission, Vision and Values document. (PDF)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MISSION: XXX is a community of multitype libraries developing partnerships and sharing resources in pursuit of excellent service.
VISION: We envision a future where all libraries & information partners collaborate to provide accessible & innovative services.
VALUES: We value–

Open access and sharing of resources.
Cooperation, collaboration and contribution among members & information partners.
Quality customer service.
Honest and open communications among stakeholders.
Respect and integrity in all interactions.
The diversity of our members and their communities.
Fiscal stability and accountability.
The protection of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy.
Innovation and creativity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rosanne asked for suggestions and/or contributions. She indicated that the information came from the survey and was presented in the way that the members categorized the values in the survey.

Action on the Mission, Vision and Values:

A motion was made by Diane Steele to take to the Mission, Vision and Values statement to the system boards for approval. Tom Turner seconded the motion. A voice vote was called: Ayes – all. Nayes- none. Abstentions –none. The motion passed.

New board structure and
tasks

Diane Steele presented for the Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee the proposed structure for the new system board. The draft Board Structure document is available on Cooperation Today in pdf format.
Option 4 is the structure preferred by the Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee. They will seek two public library trustees from each of the current system boards with at least one year remaining in their term. System submissions on Librarians, with no more than two from each system. The goal is to get a balance of representation from each of the systems. It was thought that perhaps there could be councils from geo areas which could communicate any questions and concerns to the new board.
First board 4 reps from 3 systems and 3 reps from one. The subcommittee looked at the representation of types of libraries : 261 schools, 231 publics 65 schools & 38 academics in selecting the representation for the new board. [8 public trustees (2 from each current system), 3 school librarians, 2 public librarians, 1 academic librarian, 1 special librarian]

Diane Steele moved Allen Lanham seconded the motion that the Proposal be taken back to the current system boards for approval.

There was an extensive discussion of the issues of serving on the new board. It was noted that everyone would need to be trust the new board and the people appointed. Roseanne Reidner asked if there was a discussion of size of library, and it was noted that it had been deliberately left out due to the legal limits imposed on the size of the board and the difficulty finding individuals willing to serve such a large area. Allen Lanham noted that as trustees it would be their responsibility to represent all types of libraries not just their own library. JoAnne Nabe noted that she had concerns about representation for small libraries, and noted that they need to volunteer to be on the board. Nina Wunderlich noted that proper representation depends on the people not necessarily the size of library. Jan Ison was concern that only one special and one academic were represented. She suggested that they eliminate the public librarians in favor of additional seats for the Academics and Specials. Jan would prefer that they not necessarily be librarians.

There was a discussion regarding whether the Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee was seeking comments or ratification of the proposal. It was decided that the motion currently was to take this proposal to the system boards for approval. What about input? Vote down and the panel would have to start over. It was noted that it can’t be approved if they are making change. Nina Wunderlich noted that Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee was hoping to have the board in place soon in order to hire an Executive Director. The motion was then amended to state that rather than asking the boards to approve the proposal that the Planning Panel get their reactions to the proposal and that the Planning Panel would be making a decision at the next meeting. Diane Steele so moved and Allen Lanham agreed to the amended motion.

The question on taking the Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee’s proposal to the local system boards for comments with the intent of having the Planning Panel vote on the board makeup at the next Planning Panel meeting was called:
A roll call vote of all the members present was taken [Rochelle Funderburg was present and voted rather than Anita Trame (Alt), who was present and voted for LTLS earlier.] Ayes –all, Nayes – None, Abstaining – None. The motion passed.

Public Comment on: Mission,
vision and values; New board
structure and tasks

Comments

Leslie Bednar requested comments from the public in attendance.

Jan Rhoades noted that she felt that it is important to have Public librarians on the board.

Kay Marshall noted that on the board one special or academic is fine. Public trustees bring you the general public point of view. The public should have an opportunity to comment on the board makeup. Librarians should also be on the board.

Sarah S Sagen stated that it is difficult to get people involved and would like to encourage reaching out to small libraries to be represented on the board.

Report from committees

Resource Sharing

Ellen Popit noted that the Resource Sharing subcommittee had met twice.
Amy Inhen reported for the Resource Sharing subcommittee. Amy noted that Ellen had done a great job of merging the Resource Sharing and ILL policies from each of the four systems together, and that they had much more in common than not. The subcommittee hopes to have to the full panel the Resource Sharing and ILL mashups on basecamp by Christmas.
LLSAP managers reported on the process and interface to merge the automation systems together. The process is going well. The subcommittee heard further from the LLSAP managers regarding a description of what a shared system means. They also reviewed Jan Ison’s thought piece on LLSAPs. They looked at existing policies of all systems, including the format. They are using “responsibility of” structure for the documents.
Harriette Zipfel noted that the LLSAP policies may be an issue for legal review. Amy noted that there would be a need for the Legal, Governance and Membership subcommittee to review the grievance policies. Each of the systems have different practices for a reciprocal borrowing card.

Break

Delivery

Leslie Bednar noted that Delivery Committee has met twice. Dick Helton met via phone with the delivery supervisors, and the subcommittee hopes to have face–to-face meeting with the working group in two weeks. There are a lot of maps to look at. It has been decided that delivery drop-off centers should be called Regional Hubs rather than community centers, as they may be a pickup point for more than one town. In looking at the impact of Regional Hubs, it reduces the 400-500 stops to 250 stops. Delivery would be to Public libraries and others would come and pick up the materials. This would save time and gas. Allen Lanham noted that there would be several cases where due to the volume both the school and public would receive delivery. Delivery is also looking at mailing books to smaller volume libraries. Possibly having the system pay the postage on mailing the books. Determination of the cost of postage vs the cost of a delivery stop. Problems with drivers going to libraries that ARE closed and no one is at the library. Proposing fines on libraries ($50 min ) and costs to be determined by the system board. Warnings should be issued with no delivery until the fine is paid. The problems caused with delivery are often due to not having keys to some of the buildings. In order to get delivery the library must give driver a key or go before the board and ask for an exception. Possibly using keyed delivery boxes outside the building. Bids from delivery company to do delivery. Leslie is working on an RFP for delivery.
DOG – Delivery On the Go. – Route on to and mark in a special way, so that those books can avoid being handled twice and it means that a book can be delivered more quickly. Colored sheets to show the items are delivered on to another library later on the route. Banding books for several books going to the same location regardless of whether they are on the same route. Convenience points for delivery. Have the books near the door or at least on the same floor. 15-30 min per stop. Time saver. Marian Albers noted that for now there would be four delivery hubs, and they would be working at becoming more efficient. Harriett Zipfel reminded the subcommittee that in looking at an outside Delivery company; what about a no strikes. DOG is a good idea. Libraries need to be aware of the route. How do earlier libraries benefit? Banding books takes space. LCLS the drivers bring their own carts why is there an extra cart. Delivery area on the first floor. Allen Lanham resource for other libraries. Drivers are providing good service meeting and greeting staff and a minimal number of stops would make this more efficient. Marian Albers – try to save sorting time by doing what they can at the libraries. Nina Wunderlich asked about giving and getting the rubber bands. Non sticky tape was more of a problem. It works out over time. Diane Steele – Are there a lot of libraries that haven’t submitted keys? Consequences… are necessary. Bev Obert indicated that book drop boxes might be a solution to this problem for some libraries. Banding books. Rochelle Funderburg – You should offer an alternative to the key, as there may be liability issues associated with handing out keys. Educating the library public that libraries are not free. Here are what it costs to get this service. In response to Jan Ison’s question on delivery volumes being proposed, Leslie Bednar noted that based on the FY2010 library volume she had developed a map using Batch Geo and the suggested volume ranges for delivery indicated below.
Mail for 49 or less
50-299 2 days
300-499 3 days
500+ 4 days
5 days based on discretion of the delivery supervisor or the system. The result of use of Regional Hubs would reduce the number of stops down to 233 from individual stops of 568. The goal is to share this information with working the group to see if this makes sense.
Rochelle Funderburg left the meeting. Juliette Douglas – Consider if it is just one year, you may have lost your opportunity. Is it is forever, or is it the time to consider outsourcing.

Legal, Governance &
Membership

Nina Wunderlich reported for the Legal, Governance & Membership (LGM) subcommittee that they felt the Intergovernmental Agreement [pdf] was ready to take to a lawyer. Nina requested that the LGM subcommittee be authorized to hire Phil Lenzini to review this document as well as future documents such as bylaws, etc. for the subcommittee. Jan Ison pointed out that on page 4 it should say, planning panel, and that the Lincoln Trail zip code should be 61822.

Nina Wunderlich made the motion to authorize the Legal, Governance & Membership (LGM) subcommittee to hire Phil Lenzini. Rosanne Reidner seconded the motion. A roll call vote of all the members present was taken [Anita Trame (Alt) voted rather than Rochelle Funderburg, as Rochelle was not present.] Ayes –all, Nayes – None, Abstaining – None. The motion passed.

Nina noted that the LGM subcommittee planned to post the proposed membership criteria for public and academic libraries for public comment by Christmas. Bev is going to meet with a school representative from each system to get feedback before the school membership criteria are made available for public comment. It is hoped that they will be available in January. At that point it is agreed and sent to System Boards for review and posting to membership.

LMG would like to recommend that a working group of fiscal officers be created to develop and present financial information to answer the committee’s questions regarding the salary information for the system director, surplus property and procedures of disposal, and building operating costs. Allen Lanham requested that it be presented in a written format. Jan Ison requested that that information be made available to the entire planning panel, not just the LGM subcommittee.

The job description is being created and should soon be up in bootcamp as a draft.

This new entity needs a “Name”, so please consider this over the holidays.

LGM will be meeting by conference call in December.

Public Comment on Committee reports

Comments

Kay Marshall – Thanked the panel for their work.

Casey Jones – Are we able to get the service we’ve been getting? Are we looking at old solutions in regards to delivery? 19th century solutions to 20th century problems. Technology is downloading books. Have they thought about a regional download service instead of spending on delivery?

Marian Albers – We do Overdrive, but we still have 4,000 items per month that need to be delivered.

Joan Rhoades – DOG = We love it. We will change right away where the delivery driver walks to pick up our items. According to my co-director Carli gets5 day per delivery regardless of volume. Where is the parity?

Barb Rhoades – I know from experience that if you remove the word system from the name you will confuse people. Please disregard removing the word system. Consider an efficiency expert. We are turning a corner, the survey invited us to respond to what we remember. We don’t need what we had, hoping that you will be brave enough to take the next step. Next generation things that will need to be defined. Do we need consultants waiting at their desk. Do we need cataloging? How can we deliver services in a different way Hopes… don’t go back to what systems were. Deliver services in a different way.

Sarah Homer – We still have paper books. The new system will need to think about the future. Automated independently, we don’t have a community where we are likely to be able to expand to join a new LLSAP.

Judy Groom Freeport Lib – Visual maps of delivery are wonderful. Would like to see them posted for the public. Leslie Bednar indicated that when there was a proposal and when they were as clean and accurate as possible, they would be posted.

Tina Hubert, Six Mile Library, asks that you not sweat the details. Make them good enough, don’t worry about making them perfect. Don’t make yourselves crazy with the wording. You need to meeting as much as possible. There is a lot to be done. You have fabulous momentum. Don’t lose it. Thank you, you are doing a fabulous job. Delivery – recognize the huge change for the members. May increase costs on the other end. Once it is figured out, help along to visit as many of the libraries as possible. Help people to recognize the new ways of doing things.

Harriette Zipfel – Loved what Barb had to say. IL has been leader. Reinvent ourselves. Reestablish ourselves as a library leader and to become trailblazer. Need to gain energy and synergy—trailblazers. Maybe a good name.

Susan Middleson LCLC, personnel requirements should be left to the new Executive Director, who will make those appointments.

JoAnne Nabe– Kindle won’t participate in Overdrive.

Ron Coleman – the new Executive Director from should be from IL.

Rose Ann – Homer thanks everyone and encourages the posting of comments.

Jan Ison thanked the audience for the challenging us to think differently.

Review of Key Milestones

Bev asked, “Are we on track?”
Key milestones. – Progress. JoAnne Nabe was concerned that we might have trouble meeting the timeline.

What might we adjust?

We are ahead of the game even though we have a lot of work to do.

Desired outcomes for next
meeting

List items

Full panel will not be able to meet in January, so subcommittees will meet. Full panel will meet twice in February, early and late, probably in Effingham.

  • Thursday 10
  • Fri & Sat 25 & 26

Final action on board makeup, executive director job description, resource sharing, vision values, strategic directions, governmental agreement.

Jan sending out visions ahead for comments so can take to boards before our next meeting. Also on coop2day for public comment.

Rosanne thanked everyone for their comments. Encouraged all to watch coop2day and make comments.

Meeting and Facilitation Review

Plus/Delta
Bev – Intergovernmental agreement will be ready in January with the others in February on Basecamp.

Turn the heat on.

Public comments are very helpful.

Allen concern because of helter skelter of the documents in basecamp. Need to be more organized, perhaps color coded by committee. Staff time organizing for this board.

Dated – Advanced list helped. Notebooks and ready to go.

Karen – Project documents to be discussed on the screen, so that all will know what the document looks like.

Adjourn

At 5:02 Ron Coleman moved that the meeting be adjourned. Tom Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed with all ayes.

(PDF) version.

Delivery Committee Minutes for December 2, 2010 meeting.

December 30th, 2010 Comments off

Delivery Committee Minutes for December 2, 2010 meeting. (PDF)

Southern System Planning Panel Flip notes for the 11.10.2010 meeting

November 17th, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning Panel Flip notes for the 11.10.2010 meeting (PDF) in Rolling Prairie Library System at the Decatur Public Library.

Southern Systems Planning Panel meeting Minutes for 11.10.2010

November 17th, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Place:

Decatur Public Library
130 N Frankin
Decatur, IL

Date:

November 10, 2010

Attending:

LCLS: Linda McDonnell, JoAnn Nabe, Dianne Steele, Elaine Steingrubey (Alt)
LTLS: Allen Lanham, Nina Pals, Rosanne Reidner
RPLS: Val Green, Richard Helton, Amy Ihnen, Mary Ann Pohl (Alt),
SHLS: Marian Albers, Karen Bounds, Tom Turner, Susan Yallaly (Alt)

Absent:

LCLS: Ron Coleman, Harriett Zipfel (Alt)
LTLS: Rochelle Funderburg, Scott Drone-Silver (Alt), Anita Trame (Alt)
RPLS: Brenda Larison (Alt), Nina Wunderlich
SHLS: Arlene Dueker (Alt), Andrea Witthoft

Others Present:

LCLS: Leslie Bednar, Juliette Douglas,
LTLS: Jan Ison, Pat Boze, Ramona Rollins
RPLS: Bev Obert, Doris McKay, Mike Syzmkoski
SHLS: Ellen Popit, Traci Edwards
ISL: Ann Craig and Lawren Tucker

Audience: Ann Adkesson, Debbie Campbell, Jan Dungey, Sarah Garley, Sandra Hayes, Janet Hicks, Deanne Holshouser, Libby Letterly, Susan Mendelsohn, Joan Rhoades, Suzy Saunders, Nancy Simpson, Cheryl Soerensen, Miranda Sowers, Lacey Wright, Diane Yeoman

Introductions began at: 1:30 pm following meetings of the Subcommittees and a tour of the Rolling Prairie Library System headquarters.

Agenda Item Discussion and Decisions

Start Up
Welcome
Purpose
Desired Outcomes
Agenda/Additions
Approve Minutes of
October 13 meeting
Affirm changes to
planning document

Bev Obert started the meeting with introductions and welcome to everyone, asked everyone to please sign in, hoped everyone got a tour of RPLS.
Additions to agenda: future meeting dates Minutes of the Oct. 14 meeting had no corrections, Val moved tp accept, second by Diane, approved. V. 6 Planning Process document is now out with additions to timeline. Discussion on member vote in February – if system boards approve resolution to dissolve, need to get information out to members. Should we remove member vote from the timeline? Is it a check on progress being made? LTLS put out the dissolution for comment and should have a good idea of the membership’s perspective by the end of the month. It’s not a vote but a ratification of what we’re doing. Tom said LGM committee recommended that’s what we do – ratification by members in the timeline instead of ‘vote’. Timeline is to have resolution to ISL by 2/1 and it seems backward to have the member vote after that date. Also, members need to have some answers. Dissolution resolution has to be done by Feb. 1 – then give members the option to ratify what has already been passed by the systems. March 1 will be the new deadline for ratification by members. Tom made the motion, Karen 2nd, unanimously approved.

Report on Issues/
Concerns from
Members

Jan facilitated discussion of C2Day comments from members about the timeline and finances. Some concern expressed by members asking what happens if they vote ‘no’. General discussion followed about planning panel members going out to members to explain financial reality, offering to assist in delivering the message about scaling back on expenses. An explanation is needed by system to individual library boards about what is happening.

LCLS: Because of economics, no funding, some of systems have reluctantly eliminated consulting, may have to look at resource-sharing & delivery for potential cuts as well.

LTLS: Some comments on what it will cost, would like to keep consulting, intergovernmental agreement to hire consultants? Some are unaware of what is going on, as much as we try not all libraries paying attention to the process

ShLS is publicizing something every week – so far no comments.

RPLS: Commitment to visiting boards. In talking to libraries, question they have is ‘will this thing work’?

The sooner we all start thinking as ‘one entity’ then we will all be the same. When we do that, we can continue to provide good services, have a foundation for going forward.

Communication
Discussion
Review of SP&D
session

Bev reviewed recent SP&D meeting, session about communications emphasizing that communication is crucial. Our communication is being done through C2D. Key issue is systems have to merge and focus on delivery and LLSAP. Stakeholders – library members, boards, users, SOS, ISL, elected officials, local officials, library associations, vendors, anyone who touches the system is a stakeholder – we have to know what they want. They have to know if it’s going to work, what services they will have – they want straight information. Officials want to be elected, with happy library users, important to save dollars. Members want to know how it will affect them, have to make sure that we as individuals and panel can communicate clearly. If we do it right they won’t notice a change. It’s important to update groups as much as possible, assure/disseminate progress made so far, set up meetings with libraries to discuss process. May not hurt to involve media, let them know what is going on/why, what we’re trying to do. Need to put out to wider media – but we don’t a lot of detail to put out right now.

Report from Subcommittees

Strategic Plan

Val presented info about the Strategic Planning survey, The committee spent a lot of time reviewing results, noticed that schools lowest in response, ShLS lowest response rate, public libraries highest response rate. Comments numbered in the hundreds, tried to pull best wording from the survey. Key terms for mission were: sharing of resources, enable libraries to provide better service, communication of library agencies. Committee developed a beginning draft mission: community of multitype libraries developing partnerships and sharing resources in pursuit of excellent service. Mission came about quickly, still working on vision/values for next meeting. Customer satisfaction was the highest value.

Jan gave a powerpoint of many of the survey responses – % by system, % by type of library, pop surveyed, majority 3-7500. Delivery data is interesting – libraries under 500 population ok with 2 day, 4 day/wk is least popular. One of the things the committee wants to do is a press release, give number who responded, state that the systems merging are compatible. Jan thinks this is a really comprehensive response. Need to include more comments – if the powerpoint goes on C2D, people may not understand context. Usually when you put out results of surveys, it says ‘majority’, ‘minority’ – make it clear in the powerpoint if comments are ‘majority, few, etc.’.

If there is a weakness in the survey, it’s how we received data about a vision statement. We have to go back to the survey more than once to help us figure out the vision. In structuring the vision of what we’re going to do, don’t want to leave out other services we should offer. Would like feedback from other groups – visions for future years may allow us to build on the two priorities – want to include what’s important.

Legal, Governance &
Membership

Bev indicated the committee is presenting discussion, not recommendations. There will be a ‘Board Representation’ document put up, for voting at next meeting. This is Option 4, with 15 members:
2 Public Library Trustees from each system board
2 Public Librarians
3 School Librarians
1 Special Librarian
1 Academic Librarian
Best option for serving the new area with 260 schools, 231 publics, 65 specials, 38 academic. Committee will propose process for appointing the first year board and for staggered terms thereafter. Document will be on Basecamp.

Headquarters discussion: Committee thinks the best geographically logical location is Effingham if central office is needed. Final decision will be made by the new board and is depending on selling of buildings. Recommending that we stay in current building until sold, look at possibility of leasing space, etc.

The committee also revisited the due diligence issue – finance managers have put info on CD but it will be uploaded on C2D with a new tab added to site, in pdf format. Documents should be sent to: Doris McKay.

The committee will refer other ‘contract’ issues to committees for discussion:
OCLC & E-resources – to Resource-Sharing and recommend that the RS committee keep those in place

Plinkit – to Strategic Planning, recommend to keep in place as long as possible
IMRF – don’t have the problems we thought, will have some rules we will have to look at but will likely recommend not dropping IMRF.
Discussed membership but no decisions. Looking at tiered situation for membership (staffing issues, inequity with size, finances, have to look at some tiering of membership)
Timeline for possible new Board – will have better idea in December but may want them appointed earlier.
Question about how will we get new board members – committee is looking at a possible structure.
Committee also developing draft documents – search committee, bylaws, etc. for new board.

Resource Sharing

JoAnn indicated committee reviewed previously approved LLSAP capital reserve accounts document. RS committee is asking LLSAP working group to clarify some of the language, will have that for the next meeting. The committee reviewed survey data, were pleased resource-sharing was so high as a value. The RS committee discussed the possibility of two-tiered resource-sharing plan as well. The next task is to look at Resource Sharing policies of all four systems, hope to have a draft document ready for review for the next meeting. In answer to question at the end about what tiered membership means, Ellen said in relation to membership with resource-sharing access– that there might be a two-tiered resource-sharing standard. Two-tiered membership might include who would be required to do reciprocal access (special library collections), etc. In regards to actual membership, some of the small libraries don’t have resources to hire/meet standards, need to look at membership standards, two-tiered approach.

Delivery

Allen said committee reviewed past work, steps forward , continue to have some discrepancies of data across systems. Instead of 5 day, looking at 4 day as highest frequency. Any library receiving 500+ items weekly would get at least 4 day/week. 300-500 3 day weekly, 50-299 2 day, mail for those under 50. The committee continues to look at community dropoff, which favors highest volume in community. Preference to deliver to site with most volumes but libraries could decide. If dropoff is insufficient, multiple dropoffs would be considered. The committee is also developing materials for an RFP for a commercial vendor – cost quote – quality and quantity. They have another meeting planned with the working group to determine possible routes, no overlap on borders. Also looking at cross-over routes of vans, might be consequence if libraries close and don’t tell us. Dick talked about the US Mail option box which at a media rate is mailed at a half-price rate. The committee is discussing implementing change to 4,3,2, day and mail delivery in January, to see how things work out. Who pays return mail cost is not yet decided. Also if funds are flat-lined, perhaps everyone will have to pay something for delivery. Know that big libraries may require 5 day/wk, will look at this in the next meeting. Academic libraries have been mailing to patrons – each system also may mail now. Is there concern that this might slow the return of material? Libraries might hold on to material, instead of spending money on boxes. As far as an idea of number of routes, vans, drivers, the committee needs more data, library by library what volume has been. Last time mentioned 3 hubs, word is there may not be any new money, don’t have money to move building hubs until they all get sold. Allen: all committees need to meet together, with the building/hub issue.

Public Comment on Committee reports

– Comfort level at how everyone is working together. How counting 500 coming or going only? Both ways

-How are you defining community dropoff? What are you using for volume – last year’s? How often assessing – using 2010 figures, will reassess yearly? Community hubs could be school or public – or several places within the community. One with the highest volume. Community dropoff – multiple towns? Still looking at all options while trying to cut costs.

-Issue raised at ILSDO – archives of all data that needs to be retained as systems consider merge. Financial – no money for headquarters? What happens to past systems archival material?

Timeline of Key Milestones

Delivery will give ‘progress’ report in December, due diligence documents discussed.
Feb. 1 – dissolution to ISL
March 1 – ratification
April 4 – ISL application, intergovernmental agreement
June 1 – area&per cap grant application due
Add date of new board? Feb/Mar at latest

Agenda items for next meeting

Dates for next meeting
Dec. 2 at LTLS
Discussion about January-doing a vtel for planning panel, separate vtels or phone calls at other times
May have to look at a 2-day meeting to finish up everything. Aren’t going to get done otherwise. ½ day com/pp, ½ day comm./pp – January meeting?
Planning a face to face with vtel on hold? Would like to meet in person, working with maps, etc. Directors will send out poll for dates.

December meeting agenda items:
New Board decision – solidification – discuss tasks of new board?
What Resource Sharing will look like in the new system?
Draft of strategic plan – mission, vision, values
Finance piece – need to know what money we will have & plan – who will handle it.
RS/delivery groups will need to decide – before finances can be determined, also tied to hiring exec. dir
If we wait too long for Exec. Dir hire, have to handle employees, benefits, etc.
Discussion of buildings? What happens if buildings are sold, if we become a new entity, who gets liabilities and assets – new entity.
Will current system/directors stay in effect until July 1? Yes, even with new board/hire
Strategic Planning committee may merge into developing annual plan, as result of what they are doing
New board has intergovernmental agreement with four existing boards – plan of service runs through June 30? Have to take a look at how this will all be handled. Need information on intergovernmental agreements that should be in place

Meeting and Facilitation Review

Plus:
Accomplished lot in subcommittee
2 hour subcommittee helps
Report backs are useful
Document list was helpful (what was needed)
Appreciate ISL reps coming to meeting
Lunch was good

Delta:
More time for subcommittees

(PDF) version.

Southern System Planning Panel Flip notes from the meeting 9.14.2010

November 4th, 2010 Comments off

Southern System Planning Panel Flip notes from the meeting 9.14.2010 in Carterville, IL. (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

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)

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

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

Notes for 6.21.10 Meeting

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