TexShare Advisory Board Meeting

12:30 PM until 3:00 PM on Monday, January 25, 2010

State and Local Records Management Training Room

State Records Center

4400 Shoal Creek Blvd

Austin, TX


1. Approval of Minutes from September 21, 2009: The minutes were approved.

2. Public Comment: none

3. Set Dates for Next Meeting: Ann Mason will poll for holding the next meeting at the end of March or beginning of April (this is dependent on the outcome of the TexShare rule adoption decision by the Commission).

4. Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) Update: Peggy Rudd reported.

Building Renovation: All the furniture has been ordered for the 4th floor. In May, the TexShare staff will move back from the temporary location. Moving the reference and archives collections back will take several months. There will be a grand reopening in the fall.

Other Administrative Issues: All state agencies were asked to plan a 5% reduction in their existing FY10 budgets. We will probably be asked to do the same in FY11. The TexShare databases will not be affected by the FY10 reductions, but we cannot say what the future will hold.

TSLAC put in an application for statewide broadband grants from the Gates Foundation. Texas did receive one $3 million grant for broadband mapping – what services are provided and where. They are hoping to have a searchable statewide broadband map by the end of March.

5. Discuss Draft TexShare Rules on Membership Expansion: Ann Mason summarized the status of TexShare membership expansion. She reported that, at its October 12, 2009 meeting, the Texas State Library and Archives Commission approved posting proposed rule changes to the Texas Register as recommended by the TexShare Advisory Board (TSAB) at its September 21, 2009 meeting. The rule amendments were posted to the Texas Register on October 30, 2009 for 30-day comment period. A number of comments were received regarding the issue of whether or not for-profit organizations should be eligible for consortium membership. Simultaneously, LRS staff engaged in additional fact-finding with database vendors to determine to what extent TexShare database pricing and content might be impacted by the inclusion of for-profit entities.

The TSAB reviewed the comments that were submitted through the rule review process and the information staff received in response to questions posed to TexShare database vendors:

• Two comments were received from medical university librarians suggesting that Texas hospitals, regardless of the presence of a hospital library, be made eligible to participate in TexShare resource sharing services. TexShare staff indicated that the statutes governing the agency do not authorize it to provide this service to hospitals.

• One comment was received from a public librarian suggesting that the agency should consider bringing all libraries into a shared catalog system that has worked successfully at the regional level. TexShare staff indicated that initiating a program of this nature does not require a change in these sections of the agency’s rules.

• One comment was received from the Texas Library Association suggesting that the rule provide a concrete definition as to what constitutes a library “group.” TexShare staff agreed that the definition could be clarified. In response, the rules have been changed to replace the term “nonprofit library group” with “nonprofit library collective” in order to make a clearer statement of commonality among members,and to add to the list of criteria necessary for a successful petition for membership or affiliate membership status the requirement that the nonprofit library collective has a designated institution or organization that speaks on its behalf regarding membership eligibility issues.

• Two comments were received from academic librarians that had a concern about for-profit and non-profit education organizations being able to combine into one group to negotiate an optimal solution with the online database vendors. This concern was confirmed in the discussions with the TexShare core database vendors, therefore for-profit libraries were not added as an eligible membership organization.

• Four comments were received from a public librarian, an academic librarian, a K-12 school librarian, and a special librarian suggesting that libraries associated with for-profit organizations be eligible for TexShare membership; seven comments were received from five academic librarians, one public librarian, and the Texas Library Association opposing eligibility of for-profit organizations. One comment from an academic librarian encouraged membership eligibility for for-profit organizations that provide public access to their libraries and/or provide public services such as free wi-fi access at their public outlets. TexShare staff has researched the impact of including for-profit organizations on database licenses, and the vendor community informed us that various publishers have agreements in place that prohibit them from providing certain content to for-profit institutions. Therefore, if for-profit organizations would become eligible for TexShare membership, the consortium would either (A) have to limit the number and type of database products available to the consortium or (B) exclude the for-profit members from participation in certain database products.

After much discussion, the board recommended a conservative approach to TexShare membership expansion, endorsing the revised rules that would allow libraries associated with non-profit institutions to become TexShare members. The board reiterated its willingness to consider expanding membership to libraries associated with for-profit institutions in future rules revisions. Per §441.229 of the Texas Government Code, the commission may allow designated libraries to participate in a group purchasing agreement only to the extent that the commission may do so efficiently and in a manner that enhances resource-sharing services to the consortium members. The TSAB and TSLAC staff will monitor this situation in the future.

6. Recommendation on Database Core for Affiliate Members: Russlene Waukechon and Karen Locher reported. A subset of the TexShare Electronic Information Working Group met to discuss whether new affiliates that choose to participate in the database program should be required to purchase the full TexShare “core” set of databases or will they be offered a “cafeteria” plan (pick and choose which databases they purchase).

Information on how the TexShare consortial database purchasing model was presented. The strengths of consortial purchasing were discussed, as well as the elements of a cafeteria plan. Also, how the TexShare databases are currently funded was reviewed to bring context to the recommendation. After some discussion, the TSAB recommendation was worded to say, “New affiliate TexShare members interested in the TexShare Database Program may participate in the TexShare core set of databases and/or participate in the TexSelect program; however they may not pick and choose databases out of the core.” The board approved the revised recommendation.

7. ILL Update: Sue Bennett reported.

Contract Award: The ILL Implementation Task Force chose OCLC’s WorldCat Navigator as the new statewide ILL system for public libraries using a competitive purchasing process. The bid for the new ILL program closed on September 4, 2009. TSLAC received five bids from vendors: Sirsi, Innovative Interfaces, OCLC, Index Data/Relais, and Auto-Graphics. The ILL Task Force carefully reviewed the bids and received presentations from all vendors. It was determined that the OCLC WorldCat Navigator product would be the easiest to implement in Texas and provide the most user friendly interfaces for both staff and patrons. Purchase of Navigator was approved by the Commission in October 2009.

A pilot of the new system will begin in January 2010 with 31 libraries. These libraries have already begun submitting information to OCLC to set up their catalogs. A kick-off meeting was held January 20th in Austin and was also broadcasted over webcast for those who were not able to attend. Over the next few months, pilot libraries will work with OCLC to set up the proper configurations and receive training for Navigator. This first group of pilot libraries will go live on WorldCat Navigator in April 2010. In May, another group of libraries will be added to the pilot.

8. Recommendation to Combine Communications and Education Working Groups: Ann Mason reported. We are recommending combining these two working groups because their meetings tend to have similar agenda items. We talked to the two current chairs and the two past chairs of the working groups, and they are all in agreement about the combination of the groups. The board approved the consolidation. It was recommended that the group be renamed, the charter be revised, and the roles and responsibilities document be updated.

9. Working Group Reports:

A. Card Program Working Group: Written report submitted by Paul Sharpe.

The Working Group held their annual meeting on Oct. 29, 2009. The group analyzed and discussed the comments received as part of the FY08 TexShare Annual Survey, which included:

• Complaints about delinquent borrowers

• Complaints about incomplete cards being issued by institutions

• Lack of advertising for the TexShare program

While most of these comments are common (particularly the complaints), the group brainstormed a few ideas to address advertising, including a downloadable flyer (possibly a PDF).

The group discussed the FY08 & FY09 TexShare Card statistics, taking notice that overall reporting is trending downward. Additionally, the need for clarification of the wording of some questions was brought up. A difference between the question asked and how the result was presented may be leading to some misinterpretation of the results.

The group reviewed the FAQs and Lost/Stolen Card procedures, recommending some changes for each. These changes pertain to the suspension of privileges at the home institution and how that information is communicated out to other participating institutions.

Ann Mason provided the group with a current list of institutions that do not participate in the card program, in hopes that working group members can be of assistance in making inroads with these institutions.

Sue Bennett briefed the group on the statewide ILL study, the selection of OCLC as the vendor, and the time necessary for training public libraries across the state. And Kevin Marsh discussed the Library of Texas discovery tool and the ability to setup widgets for interested libraries. The group suggested incorporating card logo into Library of Texas results for branding and identification purposes.

B. Library of Texas Working Group: Judith Hiott reported.

The group held a Strategic Planning Session on October 19, 2009. Ten members of the Library of Texas Working Group and two staff met for a facilitated session to plan for the next three years of the Library of Texas (LoT). Kevin Marsh set the context by telling the group that, for this meeting, LoT should be thought of as a SERVICE, not a piece of software and that changes are coming to the Interlibrary Loan Service over the next seven years.

The group brainstormed trends that are likely to affect the LoT in the next 3-5 years. The trends the group thought most important included the economy, marketing and ease of use, and standards.

Defining the primary and secondary audience for LoT is difficult because little data exists, and what data we have is a year or two old. The group determined that there were four advantages that LoT has over competitors; the primary one being that it’s considerably cheaper than World Cat or Summon. Therefore, the primary target audiences for LoT are:

• Librarians, especially of smaller libraries with smaller budgets.

• Librarians of smaller academic libraries will want to use LoT if we achieve excellence.

• Adult learners who grasp the difference between open web and library quality information AND who don’t have access to major university library services.

• Genealogists (they have unique needs).

The group identified a core set of elements of an excellent Library of Texas. They are:

• Ease of use for naïve and expert users (getting what you want easily)

• Convenience (it’s easy to find and get what you want)

• Flexibility (scoping, sorting, relevance, dates, and faceting is all easy and intuitive)

• Responsive to a changing environment, including technology changes

• Comprehensive

• User support quickly available

• Detailed statistics – users, library, support

• Recognizable to users (branding, marketing)

• Open API is a “nice to have”.

The overall goal of LoT is to increase usage. The group agreed on the following four SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) goals for the next three years. Increasing use of LoT widgets is a strategy the group wants to pursue to help achieve these goals. The group also discussed changing the name of LoT.

Next Steps:

• Set up an accountability process for reports on the SMART goals back to the working group.

• Some topics, such as user data collection, need more discussion.

• Working group will meet 4 times a year, but not all will be face-to-face.

• The next meeting (Feb 2010) will be face-to-face with more tactical discussion.

10. Administrative Report:

TexShare Database Fees. As of January 2010, we collected $1,283,989 (81%) of the TexShare FY10 Database Program Fees. 481 libraries have paid (72%).

ICOLC Statement on the Google Books Definition of Consortia.

In the original Settlement Agreement proposed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the lawsuit "The Authors Guild, Inc., Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al., vs. Google," the Agreement made provision for sales of subscriptions to the Google Book database through Institutional Consortia, with possible consortial discounts. To limit the number of consortia eligible for these possible discounts, the Agreement defined an "Institutional Consortium" as "…a group of libraries, companies, institutions or other entities located within the United States that is a member of the International Coalition of Library Consortia (ICOLC) with the exception of Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) - affiliated networks."

On Nov. 9, 2009, Google filed an amended Settlement Agreement with the Court. The effect of this amended Agreement modified the definition of Institutional Consortium, removing the exception for OCLC-affiliated networks. On December 13, 2009, ICOLC posted a statement to http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement-gbs.html requesting that references to ICOLC be removed from the definition: Participating consortia of the ICOLC agree that ICOLC should not be included in the definition of "Institutional Consortium". Given the informal, self-organized nature of the ICOLC, "membership" is not a sufficiently defined term for purposes of the settlement. An equally major problem with the Agreement is that it requires a significant percent of members of a consortium to sign onto a deal for the consortium to qualify - which is not realistic for many (if not most) consortia. It would be more appropriate to have a more broadly based definition of what constitutes an "Institutional Consortium", one that is more inclusive of U.S. library consortia as a group, and with realistic qualifications for participation.

ICOLC has not requested adoption or affirmation of the statement by member consortia. However, we welcome discussion of the statement in case ICOLC requests a more formal response.

Department of Information Resources (DIR) Statewide bid for databases.

DIR issued a bid for online Subscription Services on November 2, 2009. Texas Government Code, 2157.068, effective 9/1/2005 requires State agencies to buy commodity items (such as online subscription services) in accordance with contracts developed by DIR, unless the agency obtains an exemption from DIR. Currently DIR does not have contracts for online Subscription Services. In reviewing the historical data from Exemption Records in FY07, FY08 & FY09 DIR determined there was enough demand by state agencies to warrant the need for a competitive bid to be issued which would provide online Subscription Services for DIR customers.

At a meeting with DIR staff on November 19th, TSLAC staff discussed their agency’s legislative mandate to purchase resources for the TexShare Database program. Information was provided about the TexShare consortium and the TexShare database core menu and TexSelect program. DIR staff reviewed the benefits of a DIR issued RFP competitive bid and what benefits purchasing under such a bid could have for our agency. DIR can identify potential vendors, saving TSLAC time, and State Terms & Conditions will already be negotiated with vendors who are awarded DIR contracts. DIR emphasized their bid would not hinder our current purchasing practices but, could help our process. If DIR contracts with a vendor we want to contract with we can still issue RFP’s for database products, write specifications for database purchases to meet our agency needs, contract with vendors not on the DIR list, and change terms from those DIR negotiated. DIR invited TSLAC staff to review the vendor’s bids once they were submitted. TSLAC would like to work with DIR on other TexShare programs such as TexSelect to discover more purchasing opportunities for Texas libraries.

On Jan. 6, 2010, Jill Sutherland and Russlene Waukechon reviewed the bids submitted in response to Request for Offer DIR-SDD-TMP-131 Subscription Services. No TexShare or TexSelect vendors submitted bids for this RFO.

TexShare Rules:

The proposed rule changes were posted to the Texas Register on October 30, 2009. See agenda item #5 for detailed discussion.

Database Training Modules.

TexShare Training-in-a-Box has been released on the web!

The idea behind the TexShare Training-in-a-Box is that an individual intending to teach a course to library staff in either of these areas of the databases can simply pick up the instructor’s manual and have a full course curriculum complete with number of minutes to teach each element, examples to elicit key concepts and sample searches to perform. No original content creation or reinventing the wheel necessary. In addition, we’ve created participant manuals that instructor’s can simply copy and hand out. It works directly with the instructor’s manual curriculum.

We have been working on standardizing vendor-provided training so we can provide consistent TexShare database training for all TexShare member libraries. These two modules are the first of several training modules we plan to offer our membership.


The guidelines for the FY2011 TexTreasures grants were released on November 9, 2009. An estimated total of up to $150,000 is available for TexTreasures Grants in FY11 (an increase of $50,000 from the last 2 years). The maximum award for FY11 is $20,000 for a single institution and $25,000 for collaborative grant projects. Grant applications are due February 26, 2010, with awards to be announced in August 2010. The grant period will run September 1, 2010 – August 31, 2011.

ILL Update. See agenda item #7.

Next board meeting will be Monday, May 17, 2010.


TexShare Advisory Board Members:

Megan Cooper, Leander ISD *

Cathy Dean, San Antonio

Joan Heath, Texas State University San Marcos

Kathy Hoffman, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

Larry Justiss, Tom Green County Library System

Sheila Ross Henderson, Pasadena Public Library System

Loriene Roy, School of Information, UT Austin

Candice Scott, Schreiner University

Alice Specht, Hardin-Simmons University

* K-12 representatives serve in a non-voting capacity

Texas State Library and Archives Commission:

Sue Bennett, Library Resource Sharing Division

Kevin Marsh, Library Resource Sharing Division

Ann Mason, Library Resource Sharing Division

Ashley Perez, Library Resource Sharing Division

Danielle Plumer, Library Resource Sharing Division

Peggy Rudd, TSLAC Director and Librarian

Ed Seidenberg, TSLAC Assistant Director

Beverley Shirley, Library Resource Sharing Division Director

Russlene Waukechon, Library Resource Sharing Division

Working Group Chairs/Representatives:

Karen Locher, Electronic Information Working Group

Judith Hiott, Library of Texas Working Group

Martha Rinn, Database Cost Sharing Working Group

Strategic Partners:

Susanna Garza, Education Service Center, Region 20

Sue Phillips, University of Texas at Austin

Marty Rossi, Education Service Center, Region 20


Lena Conklin, Legislative Budget Board Analyst

Martha Doty Freeman, TSLAC Commissioner

Gloria Meraz, Texas Library Association

Page last modified: January 28, 2011