Back to Index of Meeting Minutes

Doris Brown called the meeting to order at 10:35.

1.Director’s Report (Maria)

Maria announced that the consortium has a new member, Olivet Nazarene. She needs to update the membership list and post the revised version on the homepage.

Announcements were made of FY99 collection partnership awards. Letters of commitment were sent out. Maria explained that originally she had sent out only the long form, which commits an institution to a level 4 collection. A short form, which was written last year, has less restrictive language regarding collection levels. That form was sent out to collection partners in a second mailing. Signed forms must be received before the funds are disbursed (even for year two funds).

Project Muse invoices have been sent out for this year’s subscription. There was some confusion due to the fact that some libraries paid the vendor directly. This lowered the overall consortial discount originally negotiated by Doris. Cecile raised some questions about the usage statistics. Negotiations for FY00 should start as soon as possible.

Congressional Universe invoice went out last week.

ABC-CLIO bill still outstanding. Waiting for two more institutions to pay.

MathSciNet deal, as negotiated by Karen Schmidt, was communicated to participating members. The vendor is doing the billing on this one. The license will be reviewed by Maria and Art.

Wilson Omnifile trial has not generated any response from the membership. Interest may be low because of state library offerings. Committee agreed to let this trial lapse.

HRAF. Several libraries have indicated an interest in this. CCMP might want to continue looking at this product– with other human rights databases. Pricing will be posted on the list for members to review.

Amanda Phillips, the sales rep. from American Chemical Society is coming to meet with Maria at NIU on Tuesday, April 13 at noon to discuss Chemical Abstracts. Maria invited interested CCMCC members to join her. Either Art or someone else from NIU will attend.

The ILCCM-L listserv will be recreated at NIU. Current members will be asked to re-subscribe to the new one. Maria will need to get the message out to all current subscribers, possibly by "broadcast fax". New list information will also be distributed at the May meeting

Britannica Online is up for renewal again. Tom Peters has been negotiating with Alan Bayart of EB. There were 45 member libraries participating this year. Pricing is 48.5 cents per FTE – renewal letters will go out soon – can pay in June for start in July – June is free for new members

The completed HECA 2000 proposal must be postmarked April 23^rd. Maria has looked over the HECA grant RFP as well as last year’s proposal. She will need help with one required section, the interim report on what we have accomplished. She will also need to contact NIU’s office on Institutional Research for updated FTE for membership (Maria, Art, Cecile and Tom will collaborate on the drafting of the proposal).

Karen, Allen and Maria have been working on the planning for the annual meeting. An agenda for the day has been established. Allen will give the greeting. Maria will offer a report on this year’s activities. Tom will report on the IDAL project. The late morning will be given over to a membership forum. After lunch, Peggy Johnson’s will give a presentation. The annual meeting will take place on May 21 at ISU. Maria will send out a flyer with RSVP form soon.

Cecile brought up the issue of the need to ask institutions to re-commit and re-sign forms of collection responsibility whether or not they’ve gotten funds recently. This annual process would give members the opportunity to officially withdraw from a model discipline. It would also serve as a reminder to the institutions of their collection responsibilities with respect to CCMP. Other justifications for enforcing this procedure are the frequent changes in bibliographic personnel with its concomitant lack of institutional memory. The committee recommended that a taskforce below be formed to further study this question.

A side discussion took on the issue of the information available on the web site. Several suggestions were entertained. Maria will undertake to provide hotlinks to all model disciplines on web site and attach bibliographer’s name.

Cecile thinks we ought to re-visit the consortium plan as well as the collection partnership document. Are we doing everything we should be doing? Should the entire plan be rewritten? Should there be a new document that brings all the CCMP documents together into some sort of consortium manual? There was a discussion on whether or not we should use a consultant. Doris and others were against the idea of having a consultant take over this project. Art thinks that instead of a consultant writing a new document for us, we should write it ourselves because it would be more meaningful that way. A recommendation emerged that we organize a series of small planning retreats to study these questions. The idea is that "experts" would be invited to come speak to us about specific subjects such as assessment, e-resource development, shifting state dynamics, assessment. Maria offered to take this on as a summer project. She will create a small taskforce including some people from CCMCC and some non-CCMCC members.

The general discussion ended with a reference to "NetLibrary". Tom Peters has been getting a lot of e-mail form librarians suggesting that CCMP or other state groups take responsibility for taking advantage of this powerful new resource. He uses this as an example of the librarians across the state crying out for leadership and not being sure which group has which function.

No report. Very little activity so far.

Doris thanked Allan for having his institution do the tallying. Allen asked Maria to send a thank you to the individual that did the work He will e-mail her that person’s name and address.

Independent Films by Women: This proposal is for one institution only. Cecile pointed out that the proposal guidelines clearly state that a partnership must have a minimum of two institutions. The suggestion was made that they be given tentative approval contingent on finding partners to sign up. The suggestion was approved. Mary Shellhorn didn’t vote. The committee would be willing to accept a higher dollar amount with the addition of collection partners. Columbia will be asked to re-submit the proposal within the next two weeks.

Grant approved contingent on re-write.

Journal Usage Study: This is a request for funding for the final phase of an on-going project. The committee failed to see any overt benefit of cooperation. The rationale for the project was not adequately explained in the request, nor were any collection development activities outlined. There were little or no expandability outlines in the proposal. The correlation between electronic and print was not fully explained in the request. Ultimately, the committee felt that the dollar amount was so low and the project so near completion that the institutions involved were likely to finish the project without CCMP funding.

Not accepted for funding.

CD-ROM Pilot Project: This proposal includes a separate request for computer hardware. The committee is not interested in buying hardware that will be locally mounted. We are more interested in partially subsidizing the CD-ROM or web version of these databases. The committee would like to ask that the lead institution give us a new proposal that rewrites the expandability portion as well as the evaluation portion. The revised grant ought to clarify the future web availability of the products. It should also better articulate the benefit of acting consortially. The new evaluation plan should include a proposed usage study and cost-benefit analysis. We are interested in the model of providing expanded access to these very specialized databases.

Grant amount of $24,000 for software only approved contingent on rewrite.

Environmental Studies: The committee voiced concern over funding disparities among the collection partners, from $1,000 to $20,000. How were these figures arrived at? The proposal would have been stronger with more explication. No mention is made of a plan for evaluation, nor does the proposal address the issue of collection responsibility. It is suggested that we accept this for funding on the condition that they provide us with more detail on both the individual funding requests and the evaluation plan.

Accepted for funding contingent on re-write.

Business: This is a second year funding proposal. Cecile reminded the committee that the established pattern for year two funding is 50% of original grant. Therefore, only $37,500 is available. The business proposal will need to be rewritten in light of the reduced amount.

Funding in the amount of half of year-one funds approved contingent on re-write.

Administration of Justice: The committee felt that this was a very strong proposal. There was some concern that the amount of money requested was too low. Last copy retention clause needs to specifically state that withdrawn copies will go to one of the major four-year institutions already in the partnerships.

Approved for funding.

The committee brainstormed on budget needs for the coming fiscal year. Some line items that will need to be revised are continuing education meetings, the director’s salary, web site administration money for NIU. No second year funding needed for the ILL study for FY 00. Raise the meeting fund request.

The question of the $50,000 allocated in this fiscal year for full-text newspapers came up for discussion. Since there is no existing action plan for expending those funds, the committee will need to come up with an alternate use. Maria will schedule a conference call of Allen, Art, Tom, Doris and herself to talk about the Newspaper money.

Already covered in general discussion.

6. Report of Nominating Sub-Committee for FY 00 Elections

Maria will send updated list of membership and contacts to Doris, Charlotte and Gary Newhouse and schedule a conference call to make nominations. Ballots should go out in June.

7. Other Items

Barbara Alexander offered to report on activities of the State Library. The new head of the state library, Jean Wilkins has met with the System Directors group. She as already established a good relationship with Jessie White. Barbara announced that Gate’s Foundation money for technology will be coming to Illinois. Disbursement of these funds will be based on poverty level and population. Lots of training and technical support comes with the money. For public libraries only. Live and Learn Grants as well as LSTA grants were just announced. Vendor fare in conjunction with NILRC. INAC, Illinet Network Advisory Council met.

Maria needs to get in touch with Barb Kosinski re: the consortial ECO pricing. Ask her for an update. When can we expect to see new pricing models?

Next meeting: June 14^th 10:30 – 3:00 at DePaul’s loop campus (corner of State and Jackson).

Meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.