Maine State Library Conference Room
1:00 – 3:00
Members Present: Judy Frost, CMCC; John McManus, Director Millinocket Public Library; Steve Podgajny Director, Portland Public Library; David Nutty – Director of Libraries at USM; Sue Jagels, Eastern Maine Medical Center Health Science Library Director; Barbara McDade, Director, Bangor Public Library; Clem Guthro, Director Miller Library, Colby College; Richard Thompson, CIO for the State of Maine; Joyce Rumery, Dean of Libraries at UM; Karl Beiser, Maine InfoNet CEO; Gary Nichols, Maine State Librarian; Linda Lord (non member – recording secretary)
Gary Nichols and Joyce Rumery convened this first meeting of the newly established Maine InfoNet Board. The 2003 Maine InfoNet Strategic Plan, developed by 30 Maine librarians with the facilitation of NELINET, suggested the establishment of an Maine InfoNet Board to represent users and bring new voices into the decision making process. This is the fruition of that suggestion. This report also recommended hiring a CEO for Maine InfoNet. This has been accomplished with the hiring of Karl Beiser.
1. Introductions from around the table
2. Maine InfoNet background – Gary Nichols
Maine InfoNet was launched in 1996 following a successful $4.9m Bond issue.
Maine InfoNet now contains 3.9 titles on line and facilitates 180,000 - 200,000 ILL transactions per year. Currently a large portion of this activity takes place within the Minerva system. Innovative Interfaces Inc. provides a comprehensive suite of software to allow libraries to participate in a state-wide system with the MaineCat catalog at its center. Joyce – From UM systems side, the staff at the systems office is very pleased that this has moved forward. Maine InfoNet keeps us all going in one direction – we are not going off in multiple and separate directions.
3. Agenda review
4. Board Structure, role, bylaws - Karl
Karl reviewed Maine InfoNet’s administrative structure and the relationship with Maine InfoNet staff. He then presented a draft of bylaws for consideration and suggested they be refined at the next meeting. The Board can assume there will be a chair, vice chair and secretary.
Steve Podgajny nominated David Nutty for Chair because of his connection with the University and his facilitation skills. Barbara McDade moved that nominations be closed and added that David has a vision for the future and that’s what we need. All members informally agreed that nominations be closed. (heads nodded). The Board unanimously elected David Nutty as Chair – term to be determined in the process of adopting bylaws.
Karl said that the role of the Board needs to be defined and offered to help in any way possible.
Gary read major suggestions from the 2003 Maine InfoNet Strategic Plan (also referred to as the NELINET Plan). The current Board’s purpose, taken for the most part from that plan) is spelled out in Article II of the by-laws draft submitted by Karl. The Maine Library Commission and the University System Chancellor’s Office have final responsibility for Maine InfoNet. Steve asked about the need for definition on who has the final say.
Chair Dave Nutty posed a couple of questions: What is the role of the treasurer? Since fiduciary responsibility lies with UM and MSL, do we need a treasurer? It was agreed that a Board member is needed to keep an eye on the budget, understand it, and report back to the Board, i.e. to perform overview and oversight. The Board needs to understand where the money is being spent and plan for the future. Perhaps we should call this person the chair of the finance committee rather than treasurer. The Board informally agreed to this.
Dick Thompson reminded the Board that it needs a secretary to take minutes until new bylaws are accepted. Board decided to have a recording secretary (so Board members can concentrate on the business at hand) and a Board-member secretary who supplies quality control. Judy Frost nominated Steve Podgajny for secretary, and he was unanimously elected by Board vote.
David confirmed the Board will meet four times a year with additional meetings to be called by the Chair as needed.
5. Introduction to 2003 NELINET Strategic Plan. Karl Beiser This plan recommended the formalization of the UMS and MSL relationship in regard to Maine Info Net. MSL and UMS are headed toward the realization of as many of the goals and objectives in that plan as possible. All the recommendations in the 2003 plan need to be reviewed by the Board which will make a course correction if needed. This plan was developed by a team of 30 who looked at how to improve library services through intelligent use of digital technology. NELINET facilitated. The team met for 3 days. Karl referred to “strategic vision” on page three of the Strategic Plan. – many of these recommendations have been accomplished. The notion of membership is embodied in this document. Under governance, all four points have been acted upon. The next section, “Relationship to other groups” has been held in abeyance a bit. Funding – how this is implemented and for what services needs to be discussed.
CEO – and dedicated staff - 2 ½ Maine InfoNet staff are housed at MSL and 3 are at UM. Karl is officially employed by UM but ½ salary paid by UMS and ½ by MSL. A work plan should be addressed in the next few months. Marketing and Public relations is very important. Karl has talked to many people in the library field about this. A key element that is implicit through the plan is that of a library portal. All the services that constitute Maine InfoNet or digital information would be accessible through this portal. KB – the one place where we’ve gone a slightly different direction is that we’ve really embraced Minerva beyond what was anticipated. Minerva is described differently now than it was in this report. Minerva is a consortial automated library system developed not only to provide a springboard for libraries to do statewide online requesting and lending through MaineCat, but also to improve library services to patrons through providing low-cost access to a full-blown automated library system. Minerva has a Users’ Council, and Executive Committee and a variety of sub committees. Part of the Minerva support fee goes to pay for a day a week of delivery service to each Minerva library. Minerva libraries constitute a majority of participants in the delivery service operation maintained by the Maine State Library.There may be proposals coming from Minerva to modify the relationship between it and MSL/Maine InfoNet. What will the state’s future role be with Minerva? Since the funding basis came from a State Bond, what will the future relationship be with the state? Minerva seems to be moving toward more autonomy. It may even hire more staff. Judy Frost says the Minerva Board is wrestling with whether or not it should manage its own money and be totally independent from MSL. Do they find a fiscal agent to handle money? Will they have enough income to hire staff? Need to look at standards of info going into Minerva. Judy is part of the “plan to plan” committee. Who does Minerva Board (10 people) negotiate with if it wants to make changes? Gary responded that Minerva has seen tremendous growth. This impacts everything. Steve P cautioned the Board that standards issues are critical. The disparity from library to library is notable. Unexpectedly rapid growth has meant entropy of standards. Minerva may make recommendations that this Board has difficulty with. Judy agrees that melding all the different needs, desires and wants is a challenge. Richard Thompson had to leave at this point and after being asked about his availability for future meetings responded that he is not available Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.
The Chair asked for more information about the Memorandum of Understanding between UM and MSL. Gary and Joyce responded that the MOU outlines shared responsibility about staffing and who pays for CEO and office space etc. In terms of reporting relationships, the CEO reports to the Chancellors office with Gary’s advice and consent. Steve P pointed out that in the MOU the MSL is equated with the library commission. The bylaws should reflect the MOU – it’s the Commission and the Chancellors office that have the ultimate responsibility.
The Chair asked people to review the 2003 Strategic Plan very carefully. Gary pointed out that it does go into the weaknesses and strengths of current services and structures.
6. Review of Draft Implementation Plan - Karl has prepared this and each member has a copy of the draft. Karl reminded Board that it is their responsibly to lay out future plans and strategies. He mentioned the outstanding support of Vice Chancellor Elsa Nunez, and that UM’s chief financial officer, Joanne Yestramski, needed a plan to review before the Vice Chancellor left to take a job in Connecticut. Karl emphasized that the current Implementation Plan is a draft and not meant to lock the Board into anything.
Implementation Plan Mission and Vision statements have been taken for most part from the Strategic Plan of 2003. However the following sentence is new and most meaningful to the University System: “In short we are seeking to develop a statewide digital library”. A description of current services includes URSUS, MARVEL, digitization projects, Maine Cat, Minerva, Solar, a brief mention of walk in wireless, prototype of new Maine Serials list, and a commitment to promoting and publicizing these services to Mainers of all types. After current services, there are suggestions for new services and activities and their anticipated costs e.g. licensing more resources, developing a program for digitization, use of Kirtas, a scanning/digitizing tool that UM is acquiring. Sue Jagels asked if this would duplicate the Maine Memory Network. KB – we don’t want to complicate or duplicate this.
Karl added: (a) We need to develop a Maine InfoNet portal. (b) Provide advanced searching tools – enhanced OPAC software, federated searching. Centralize data records in OPACS. Set metadata. (c) Reduce local cost of Maine Cat participation. Solar cost is mostly in the requirement that a library pay for a delivery service. MINERVA annual support fee ($3000/year) costs would be defrayed also. This is a great bargain which Maine got for paying more up front. As Minerva support costs are fixed, adding new libraries doesn’t cause those costs to increase. (The MINERVA Board has resisted dropping the annual support fee for libraries below $3000 lest it need to be raised later on.)
Steve P – Karl said something about embracing MINERVA. Is the thought that this Board will have a more active involvement with the MINERVA Board? Minerva at one time wanted a new independent staff. What are the obligations of the current staff? Is there money for a new staff? Judy F. felt that Maine InfoNet and MINERVA were synonymous and walked into a meeting feeling that they (Minerva reps) were a nuisance. What part does the Maine InfoNet board see Minerva playing in this project? Karl B – we started implementing MINVERA before anything else, and it involves a complex training process. Our efforts were focused on Minerva and as a result many people developed the idea that Minerva was the be all and end all, the centerpiece of the project. If anything, the MaineCat statewide catalog is the center piece. Judy F questioned the two URSUS reps on the Board – how did the libraries who formed URSUS achieve a working structure? Barbara M responded that BPL had to adapt a lot, but she felt listened to. A catalog committee set up the standards for URSUS. URSUS had libraries with professional catalogers and reference staff. There was a core value in the constituencies that made URSUS possible. Karl indicated that in Minerva there is not a library that doesn’t have a dark secret – some number of really bad records that need attention. Minerva started up fast – there and there was no anchor library.
7. Report on July 30, 2006 meeting with UMS Management: The draft implementation plan was presented at this meeting. Gary and Joyce attended with Karl. Seven subject areas under which MEIF money can be spent, all related to science and math, were discussed in light of the possibility of inserting one or another of the Maine InfoNet priorities. Joanne Yestramski (CFO of the Univ of Maine System) and Traci Bigney (HR) were present at this meeting along with Ralph Caruso and Elsa Nunez. The relationship between UMS and MSL was discussed and clarified.
Steve P asked who should understand the Maine InfoNet structure and UM/MLS relationship on the State side? Gary mentioned the Joint Legislative Committee. What legislative plans does the Maine Info Net Board want to work toward? Is this anything here that needs to be advanced in terms of funding and legislation? Gary said that the joint legislative committee plans to package its requests under a theme for the next several years.
Barbara M asked about the implementation plan. She sees the need for an overarching plan. (last copy storage, cooperative purchasing, someone to do negotiating for several libraries that want to purchase identical items? SP - What is the role of Maine InfoNet as a convener? Could Me Maine InfoNet be the convener of a Blaine House conference?& Is “digital library” the right name for something? Does it resonate with the public? Gary mentioned COSLA and ALA and the “great challenges” theme. Conveners of a discussion that evolves around this would be great. Steve P - There are delivery/acquisition issues here. KB – there isn’t a single way of looking at anything any more. Users need to find a means to get to what they are looking for by using mechanisms that they understand and can use. Dave N Chair – If this were any other new Board, we’d need a strategic planning session. We need to make sure the 11 of us can get all these ideas out before we get too far down the road with an implementation plan. The end of Oct is the deadline for our first legislative opportunity. Judy F agreed about the need for a strategic plan. Dave N commented that it’s also a great way for a Board to get to know each other.
How do we work on a strategic plan? Judy said let’s keep two tracks going, a legislative track and a planning track. Gary N asked if this should be a facilitated meeting. Joyce and Gary will figure out how to get a facilitator from NELINET. David N offered dedicating 5-6 hours to this task; Gary suggested early Sept. as an optimum time to meet as this will give the facilitator and Board members time to prepare. This meeting was set for Sept 8, Friday IF Arnold from Nelinet can be present. If he cannot, Gary will send other dates along.
Karl has prepared a handout about where Inofonet funds come from. This was part of the clarification that was presented to the UM financial officer.
David N, Chair asked, “Who is the staff?” The staff is listed on the last page of the information plan and consists of
- Marilyn Lutz - UM
- Tim Pellett - UM
- Deb Hensler – MSL
- Jonathan Williams URSUS system manager - UM
- Karl’s old position - Library Automation Manager/Agency Information Officer - MSL
- Bonnie Collins - ½ time - Quality control - MSL
Karl is at the University system office at 16 Central Street in Bangor. The UM Maine InfoNet staff are moving to the 3d floor of Belfast Hall at University College of Bangor.
John McManus made the motion to adjourn. Judy seconded. Adjourned at 3:15
Submitted by
Linda Lord
Recording Secretary
