TexShare ILL Working Group Minutes, November 18, 1999

Present: Nancy Paine, Scott Downing, Karen Hendrick, Keiko Horton, Heather Perkins, Carol Roberts, Rebecca Linton, Linda Lupro, Susie Thompson, Deborah Littrell, Lisa Anderson, Jeanette Mosey, Tim Prather



Nancy distributed six handouts: TexShare ILL Protocol, TexShare ILL Working Group Charge, Minutes from March 12 meeting, 1998-1999 Statistical summary, document on URSA (Universal Resource Sharing Application).

Nancy introduced new public library members: Kate Cordts, San Antonio Public Library and Linda Lupro, Ft Bend County Library. Also joining us was TSLAC TexShare Coordinator, Deborah Littrell. She announced that Sarah Lowman could not be present because she wass in Boston consulting with architects on plans for Rice building project.

She announced that at last count the workshop had 152 registrants, including attendees from Georgia, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Nancy requested additional nominations for ILL award if any WG members had suggestions.

First topic: How will public libraries be integrated into TexShare?

Kate began a discussion on issues:

1. Many types and sizes of public libraries

2. TexShare card and libraries that charge out of area users and need that revenue

3. Protocol issues: protocol is more liberal on lending non-book formats than most public libraries

4. Interlibrary borrowing and lending already happening among public and academic libraries

5. Varying experience and levels of knowledge about ILL processes

6. Requirement that libraries become selective users: (not relevant because all public libraries will not be doing ILL themselves)

The group concluded that the addition of the public libraries to TexShare would not result in any major changes in the way ILL is done, but will enhance ILL activity.

There was then a discussion on why libraries would want to sign the protocol:

1. Protocol standardizes practices

2. Protocol drops processing fees for lost books

3. Protocol is useful for showing non-library officials processes required/funding etc. Library directors can use as tool to get funds to become selectives

4. Signing Protocol acknowleges willingness to participate

We should consider how the Protocol is viewed in the field as some wording may need to be changed to soften impact of such items as selective user requirement. Should anything be added to the Protocol to encourage non lenders to lend?

Action: Add line encouraging selective users to add holdings to OCLC.

Other issues:

Who is responsible for lost books for referral requests?

Answer: Library that actually receives materials. TexNet guidelines cover this procedure. Since this is understood by some but not by all, does it need to be addressed in protocol?

Action: Put line in Protocol indicating referral requests are the responsibility of the "Ship To" library

There was then a discussion of the charge to the ILL Working Group and the Group's activities in general. It was recommended that the word "protocol" be taken out of the name of the working group since we do many things besides work on the Protocol. Deborah indicated that we should make this request in our report to the Advisory Board.

There was then a discussion of how Chair and Advisory Board Representative are selected. The group indicated that they wanted Nancy Paine and Sarah Lowman to continue in their roles as Chair and Representative respectively.

The report to the Board should indicate we are ready to have public libraries sign the Protocol. An implementation strategy needs to be developed with reasons for libraries to sign on. A summary of those reasons would be:

1. For better support and continuity

2. To encourage the already existing partnership between publics and academics

3. To act as backup for librarians unsure of practices

4. To set standards for ILL processes

5. To participate in long range state resource sharing goals.

Next topic: TexShare ILL Protocol Changes

Group decided we should change the first sentence to read "academic and public libraries". There was a discussion of what the advantages are for academic libraries to have the publics join:

1. Broader holdings

2. Encourages use of custom holdings

3. Greater use TExpress which is financially advantageous to academics who are generally the biggest lenders

There was a brief discussion of "shared facilities"–libraries that combine school/public libraries and how those might impact ILL, since some libraries will not provide ILL service to school libraries.

Other changes to the Protocol:

1. Revise example of mailing address using TExpress: put hub/site in Ship to field

2. Non-ILL items should be independently packaged and clearly labelled to where they should go

3. Ariel address should go into Fax field of ILL work form

4. Section fax or Ariel copy of request

Next topic: TexShare ILL Statistics Report from OCLC

Because of a still unresolved problem with the coding, the report has not been successfully produced since June 1999. OCLC is still trying to determine what is causing the problem. The "customized" reports are produced by OCLC's Marketing and Analysis department, and their primary job is to provide reports for internal use. Because of their workload, reports like TexShare's get put aside when there is a problem.

Action: A list of the public libraries should be sent to OCLC to add to the report, so that their activity can be added in when the report is working again.

Next topic: Appointments to the Working Group

In December, two members leave the Working Group. Both represent private universities. At that time, if public library representatives replace them, there will be no private university ILL representatives. It was suggested that another private university representative be named, with the goal of having fuller representation for public libraries within three years.

Deborah gave background on development and composition of the TexShare Advisory Board, Coordinating Council and working groups. The Coordinating Councial ceased to exist but because of members' expertise, they were appointed as members of the working groups.

She described some basic principles about Working Group composition enunciated at a recent board meeting:

1. Groups should not grow in size

2. Groups should be representative of TexShare libraries

3. Groups should strive to be representative of all types of libraries

Based on those principles, expiring positions should be filled by public library representatives. Present chairs were asked to continue in their roles for continuity, and former Coordinating Council members were added to their groups as members.

The group asked if the position vacated by Brad Harris in summer 1999 and still unfilled could be filled by a private university representative, with the two public library representatives appointed to the vacancies created by expiring terms, giving the working group 12 members instead of 11. Deborah was unaware of the vacancy and said this was a possibility.

The group agreed on a list of library types that should be represented by the 12 spots:

State academic (large)

State academic (small)

Community College

Health Science

Private University (Large)

Private University (small)

TexNet Center

2 Large public libraries

2 selective OCLC use public libraries

Non selective OCLC user public library

Some members felt that giving six positions to the public libraries gave them a larger percentage than their membership warrants. Deborah indicated that in moving forward with TexShare for future resource sharing development we need representation for emerging participants and representatives need to represent more than just their own insitutitions. Nancy responded that if academics which tend to be the biggest lenders are under-represented, some may become less interested in participating in TexShare ILL. Jeanette indicated that one community college representative was enough but that persons from various types of community colleges should be selected each time a new representative was needed. But there was also concern that if the slots are too specific, the pool of possible candidates would be too narrow.


After lunch there was more discussion on the composition of the group. Nancy planned to ask for additional nominations to the Working Group during the Workshop. She would encourage libraries with the idea that "no library is too small or too remote" to send a representative to the Working Group.

Next topic: Our Charge to the Advisory Board

The list of tasks for the forthcoming year was discussed.

Rebecca Linton described how the Internet might be used to enable non-OCLC member libraries to join in a state ILL network. There was a discussion of current vendors who are developing such systems. Committee make up for a group to investigate was discussed, and Rebecca agreed to lead a team. Heather and one of the new public library representatives agreed to be on the subcommittee. It was hoped that Connie Moss of Dallas Public Library would act as a consulting member to the committee. Jeanette suggested the subcommitte charge be to investigate possibilities for later discussion by the Working Group. Should a recommendation be made based on budget planning calendar? Discussion followed on the TexShare budgeting calendar and TexShare's long term goals of making TexShare valuable to the people of Texas so that the legislature might increase funding.

The group discussed proposals previously made for net lending reimbursement. Deborah suggested that the Working Group should put forward proposals (even ones that had previously not been accepted) that would improve resource sharing in Texas. Nancy noted that early focus groups showed that directors would always prefer to spend TexShare money on electronic databases rather than ILL. There was discussion of medical libraries need for reimbursement for each ILL transaction within TexShare.

Nancy asked for ideas for new links for the web page. The roster has been updated. Latest available statistics have been posted.

Unfinished projects such as a history of the ILL Working Group, a list of ILL experts, and encouragement for the LoanStar electronic discussion group were continued as projects for next year.

Next topic: New Programs

Group discussed an option of requiring TexShare participants to pay more for participating selectively. Hopefully this would encourage them to participate fully in all programs.

TexTreasures: Has it been publicized as a Resource Sharing program?

TexShare card is an example of how participation can cost a library significant money in lost revenue.

Scott suggested three ideas for enhancing TexShare ILL:

1. Union List UT Austin's serial holdings on OCLC

2. Statewide ILL system

3. Electronic ILL between libraries a la Prospero

Nancy suggested a project to test transmitting Ariel documents to non-Ariel sites email addresses. UT Austin, Southwestern, University of Houston, Texas Tech and TAMU Commerce agreed to participate as Ariel senders.

There was then a brief discussion of the results of the ILL survey done by Rebecca Linton. Rebecca noted that she had a very good response. The results will be posted on the TexShare web pages.

Finally the group worked together assembling name tags and information handout packets for the workshop to be held the next day.

Page last modified: February 1, 2011