FY2007
FY2007 hedgesstJune 8, 2007 Minutes
June 8, 2007 Minutes hedgesstOHIO
PUBLIC LIBRARY INFORMATION NETWORK (OPLIN)
ONE HUNDRED SECOND REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes
– June 8, 2007
1. WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER
The
one hundred second meeting of the Ohio Public Library Information
Network (OPLIN) Board of Trustees was called to order at 10:05 a.m. on
Friday, June 8, 2007 by Board Chair Donna Perdzock at the State Library
of Ohio in Columbus, Ohio.
Present
were Board members: Donna Perdzock, Bonnie Mathies, Anne Hinton, Bob
Richmond, Mary Pat Essman, Gayle Patton, Richard Murdock, Terry Casey,
and Sandi Thompson.
Also
present were: Stephen Hedges (OPLIN), Joel Husenits (OPLIN), Karl
Jendretzky (OPLIN), Jo Budler (State Library), Diane Fink (State
Library), Doug Evans (OLC), Laura Solomon (Cleveland Public Library),
Jeff Wale (Toledo-Lucas County Public Library), Gary Branson (London
Public Library), and Mike Wantz (Perry County District Library).
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (1)
The Chair called for public participation, and there was none.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Terry
Casey motioned to approve the agenda, Richard Murdock
seconded. All aye.
4. APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES of February 9 meeting
Gayle Patton
motioned to approve the minutes from the February 9th meeting, Anne
Hinton seconded. All aye.
5. APPROVAL OF
THE MINUTES of April 13 meeting
Gayle Patton suggested that the
minutes explicitly state the meeting was a Board retreat.
In response to a question about gender as a factor in choosing new
Board members, Stephen Hedges noted that gender was one of the
demographics the Nominations Committee considered, but other factors
were determined to be more important. Donna Perdzock stated
that the selection committee was merely being mindful of a
candidate’s
gender in the interest of having a diverse
group.
Terry Casey motioned to approve the minutes from the April 13th
meeting, with the added note that it was a Board retreat, Mary Pat
Essman seconded. All aye.
6. ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINANCE REPORT
Diane Fink gave a detailed finance report. Report A covered
budget
and expenditures for fiscal year (FY) 2006-2007. There are three weeks
of FY 2007 left. This year, with the conversion to a new
financial system (OAKS) on July
1, the current system will end on June 30. The state needs extra time
to convert all of the data into OAKS, so the last day to set aside
money to vendors will be June 14. All open encumbrances will convert
over to the next FY on July 1st, and OPLIN has five months to pay them
off. Diane noted that there are usually a large amount of these, due to
telecommunications invoices, which generally run a month or two behind
in the
billing cycle. All available GRF monies have been encumbered, and there
is some unused spending authority in Fund 4S4 monies.
Report B covered the revenue and cash balance for Fund 4S4
monies
for FYs 2006-07. Report C covered budget and expenditures for the Gates
Staying Connected Grant, and this will be the last appearance of this
report. OPLIN provided matching funds for this grant, and as of the end
of May, all monies have been disbursed and paid to the vendors, so the
project is done.
Report D covered revenue and cash balance for Fund 4S4 funds
as of
the end of June. There are no longer any OPLIN positions funded with
Fund 4S4 money; all are GRF-funded now.
Report E provided OPLIN budget projections. The only
numbers
available for FYs 2008-09 are the Executive and House versions of the
budget. The Senate version will be voted on next Tuesday, and
it
will then go to conference committee, but no other changes affecting
OPLIN are expected and a new budget will be ready by July 1.
Diane explained the difference between Fund 4S4 and GRF funds,
and
also gave some updates from OBM. Under the current budget,
there
are a lot of changes under tax reform. The Strickland administration is
also looking at spending reform; agencies are expected to be more
conservative in their spending than in the past, which has already been
seen with some of the food and hiring freezes. The administration wants
to make sure that the budget remains balanced so agencies
don’t
have to take cuts later.
On July 1, the state is moving to the OAKS financial
system.
OBM will have more control over purchasing, and agencies will have less
flexibility with transfers of funds. The state is also implementing
policy and procedural changes regarding vendor payments. Under the new
system, the philosophy is that unless the vendor is giving the state a
discount, there is no reason to pay the vendor within 30 days. Also, a
new statewide centralized process for mailing checks to vendors means
that staff may end up spending more time reconciling accounts, etc.
State Library staff are being trained on the new system, so they will
be ready on July 1. The next budget request will also be done through
the new system.
Richard Murdock motioned to approve the Finance
Report, Anne Hinton seconded. All aye.
7. OLD BUSINESS
7.1. New
Board Members
Stephen Hedges introduced four of the five new OPLIN Board
members,
who were attending the meeting. Seven names were submitted to the State
Library Board for consideration. They looked at the demographics above
all else and picked five. Stephen noted that he neglected to
ask
the State Library Board to decide which new member would get the
shorter, two-year term, but that will be settled at the next State
Library Board meeting. OPLIN Board members can serve two consecutive
full (three-year) terms, but the shorter one does not count as a full
term.
7.2. Library
Services Manager Position
Stephen Hedges reported that the position was posted on May
10. After discussions with Stephen, Donna Perdzock appointed
the
following people to the committee to interview candidates: Stephen,
Karl Jendretzky, Meg Spernoga from OhioLINK, Carol Verny from OHIONET,
and Jay Burton from the State Library. It’s not clear from
the
OPLIN bylaws or budget language who has the hiring authority for staff
positions. Diane Fink noted that Personnel Actions ultimately must be
signed by the State Librarian.
Donna Perdzock felt that the Board would want a report from
Stephen
on the committee's recommendation, but did not think they would want to
sit in on interviews. Stephen noted that he’d
received
about 50 applications, and about half meet the minimum
qualifications. Next Friday the committee will interview four
candidates and should have a hiring recommendation for the August
meeting, though posting is open until filled if necessary.
7.3. Service Mark
Renewal
Stephen Hedges reminded the Board that the federal
registration for
the name “OPLIN” expires this year, and next year
registration of the old OPLIN logo expires. He has had
correspondence from Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, the legal firm that
was
monitoring this, and has corresponded with the Attorney General's
office about registering with the state instead of federally and having
everything handled from now on by the Attorney General instead of
outside counsel. OPLIN has a new representative from the
AG’s office named Walter McNamara, who will oversee the
process
of registering the name and new logo with the state.
7.4. ohioweblibrary.org
Developments
Stephen Hedges reminded the Board about the proof-of-concept
pages
OPLIN staff developed for the retreat. Staff are working on
three
initiatives to improve the OWL search engine for libraries, models that
could retrieve both database and catalog records.
Stephen and Karl Jendretzky had a conference call with a
Google
developer, went to OCLC and talked to them about their WorldCat
product, and also received a quote from MasterKey.
OPLIN staff think the current Google Custom Search
test page is
about as good as it can be for now, especially after talking to Google
and asking for their suggestions. The problem is getting to the
database content. If this is the model OPLIN pursues, then
development is essentially finished until EBSCO and other database
records are indexed by Google and accessible via this CSE.
Karl
and Stephen thought they could take database MARC records and create a
flat file to be indexed by Google, but Google indicated that while
their search engine might discover it, it would not index such a
special file, because Google looks at the popularity of a site, how it
has been hit, etc., and this file would not meet some
of the
criteria.
MasterKey looks better to OPLIN staff. It is
inexpensive and promising enough that OPLIN staff thinks we should buy
a Level 1 plan (for 20 commercial databases) for a year, test it, and
see how well it works.
Karl and Stephen also visited the OCLC/WorldCat
developers.
OCLC talked about WorldCat 3 (or "WorldCat Local" as it is called in
the beta tests) and their plans to add social tools to it (book reviews
by people, etc.). Their concept is an OPAC, with database
records
added on, while OPLIN tends to look at the problem the other way
around. Currently, not enough Ohio libraries have their
catalog
records in WorldCat to make this an effect option for us. OCLC will
probably propose a cost to get the whole state of Ohio on WorldCat. Jo
Budler said she has impressed upon OCLC that OPLIN and/or Libraries
Connect Ohio would not want to be paying double; OhioLINK is already
paying for a large portion of the state's libraries. Stephen noted that
OCLC also said they could work with MasterKey and build a hybrid
product.
Stephen explained the vision of what the actual OWL web page
would
look like. There would be an OWL homepage, but OPLIN could also provide
libraries with an OWL search widget for their pages. This
design
would also be the basis of OPLIN’s web page templates to give
to
libraries. One of the nice things about MasterKey’s service
is
that OPLIN can control the ranking of the search results –
that
is, OPLIN can make an individual library’s resources appear
higher for searches conducted in their building, etc. This tool would
be something for the general public, as opposed to a librarian-only
tool. We would also have an advanced search, to allow people
to
choose individual databases.
Gayle Patton motioned to
buy a one year subscription to the MasterKey Level 1 service, Sandi
Thompson seconded.
Roll call:
Donna Perdzock, aye;
Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Bob Richmond, aye; Mary Pat
Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye; Richard Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye;
and Sandi Thompson, aye.
7.4.1.
KSU
ScanPath cost and timeline
Stephen Hedges and Joel Husenits recently went to Kent State
University where they saw a demo of the ScanPath web page usability
testing service, using the current OPLIN research database/remote
access page and a nearby student as a test subject. It was
both very interesting and very sobering. OPLIN has several prototype
OWL website pages that are polished enough for them to test.
Stephen explained the costs involved: there is a fee per subject, per
task. ScanPath staff advise that ten test subjects should be
enough, and he and Joel asked KSU to find a representative mix of the
general population. OPLIN has asked for ten subjects and four tasks,
and hopes to get a discounted price. The testing is tentatively
scheduled for August 24.
Richard Murdock motioned to
approve up to $10,000 for ScanPath testing, Anne Hinton seconded.
Stephen Hedges explained how KSU finds users, and described
the deliverable: a hard drive with all of the sessions taped, plus a
summary analysis, including "heatmaps" of all tested pages. Bonnie
Mathies asked whether KSU will give OPLIN a composite of the
demographics beforehand, and whether OPLIN has final approval. Stephen
noted that OPLIN will ask to have approval before they test.
Roll call:
Donna Perdzock, aye; Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Bob
Richmond, aye; Mary Pat Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye; Richard
Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye; and Sandi Thompson, aye.
8. NEW BUSINESS
8.1. Staff Pay Increases for FY2008
Stephen Hedges explained that it was probable, pending the
Governor's approval, that exempt staff will be eligible for up to a
3.5% raise, which would provide parity with the union agreement
negotiated last year for non-exempt staff. Diane Fink explained that
the raises have been anticipated in the FYs 2008-09 OPLIN operating
budget. Jo Budler noted that the State Library simply has to absorb
these
increases, that we are not given more money to cover them. Stephen
explained that everyone at OPLIN is exempt administrative staff, and he
presented his recommendations on staff raises to the Board. He asked
for approval to proceed with the recommendations, pending Executive
approval of pay increases for exempt staff.
Stephen Hedges noted that there are currently no plans to
replace Karl Jendretzky’s vacant position in the OPLIN
Support Center, because he thinks it can operate with two staff.
Terry Casey
motioned to approve the personnel recommendations, Mary Pat Essman
seconded.
Roll call: Donna Perdzock,
aye; Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Bob Richmond, aye; Mary Pat
Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye; Richard Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye;
and Sandi Thompson, aye.
8.2. Focus Groups on OPLIN
Stephen Hedges reminded the Board that at the retreat they had
discussed what to do with any extra funds in our Fund 4S4
account. Gayle Patton and Terry Casey had suggested doing
some focus groups around the state to ask OPLIN’s customers
how the organization might spend this money. Stephen met with
Wayne Piper from OLC, and the two talked about holding five two-hour
focus groups around the state. These would start in the
middle of September, with one happening about every two weeks, usually
in the morning. OPLIN cannot provide lunches, which might
interrupt meetings anyway, but OLC could provide coffee and snacks as
part of their facilitation of the sessions.
Wayne and Stephen would ask the focus group participants to
describe the OPLIN office as a way to gather their current perceptions
of OPLIN. Wayne wants Stephen to then present what OPLIN
actually is and does, and ask the libraries what their technology
challenges are, and base the discussion around that. Ideally,
the groups should consist of branch managers, small library directors,
children’s supervisors, and other such "middle managers" that
seldom have contact with OPLIN staff. Stephen reviewed the
quote from OLC.
Terry Casey said he thinks OLC should provide lunch,
because it is important to get people relaxed and amenable to
participating, and it also helps to show appreciation to the attendees.
Terry also made suggestions about the number of participants; eight to
ten is ideal, the dynamics being better with a smaller group. Doug
Evans gave an estimated revised quote for facilitating sessions that
would include lunch.
In answer to a question, Stephen said the Board would
discuss the findings at their first regular meeting after the sessions,
and not wait until the next Board retreat. There was a general
discussion about how to position the workshops, the invitations,
etc. Participants should try to suspend reality and think
about big ideas,
and not get caught up in the reality of current economics, etc.,
perhaps suggesting more general “library
technology” ideas than OPLIN-specific thoughts. Stephen noted
that OPLIN ultimately wants suggestions that are within its mission.
Terry Casey
motioned to authorize up to $8,000 to spend on conducting these focus
groups with OLC. Gayle Patton seconded.
Roll call:
Donna Perdzock, aye; Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Bob
Richmond, aye; Mary Pat Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye; Richard
Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye; and Sandi Thompson, aye.
8.3. Gongwer
Report Possibilities and Proposal
Stephen Hedges explained that Gongwer, Inc. perennially tries
to win our contract for state government information, which we
currently get from Rotunda, Inc. (Ohio Capitol Connection). Our
response this year is that OPLIN will not make any changes pending the
RFP due to be released in November by the LCO
partners. Stephen noted, however, that it would be good for
librarians to have access to more than one source of state government
information, but the current price of a Gongwer subscription is
prohibitive for many libraries. OPLIN has negotiated an offer from
Gongwer to distribute the Gongwer
Report, one portion of the complete Gongwer subscription
service, through a special OPLIN listserv available only to librarians
and limited to 200 readers. Gongwer’s proposed cost
to OPLIN is roughly half what it would cost for the full subscription
service to 200 libraries. Stephen noted that the purpose of
the listserv is not to evaluate Gongwer, but it would give librarians
an opportunity to become familiar with their product.
Terry Casey motioned to
authorize the OPLIN director to purchase the Gongwer subscription as
described, beginning July 1. Richard Murdock seconded.
Roll call: Donna Perdzock,
aye; Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Bob Richmond, aye; Mary Pat
Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye; Richard Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye;
and Sandi Thompson, aye.
There was a break at 11:37
a.m., during which time Lynda Murray (OLC) arrived.
The meeting resumed at
11:48 a.m., starting with Item 9.2.
9. OPLIN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT -- Stephen Hedges
9.1. Office Activities
After Item 9.2
Stephen Hedges highlighted several recent meetings, noting
that there have been a lot of governmental meetings lately.
9.2. Library Partnership Summit
Stephen Hedges reported that on May 21, almost 300 people came
to the Fawcett Center for the Library Partnership Summit, representing
all three library communities: public, academic, and
K-12. Topics of discussion were the "silos" separating the
communities and the replacement of the LSTA money that currently
supports some of the LCO database purchases.
Jo Budler explained that the idea of this Summit came from a
public library director and grew from there. In addition to the LCO
partners, OHIONET, OLC, OELMA, and ALAO all got involved. Stephen
Hedges noted that OPLIN and others committed their annual meeting money
to support the Summit. Attendees were administrators and others who
could make decisions about spending money.
Lynda Murray (OLC) explained it seems from the Summit
feedback which OLC has received that there were essentially three
subjects discussed at the Summit: jointly purchased databases,
statewide resource sharing, and 24x7 live reference service. All three
have to some degree been funded with LSTA money, which will soon be
redirected to support other new initiatives. Lynda wanted to
talk to the OPLIN Board about databases.
Lynda thinks the Board should think about trying to put OPLIN
into permanent law. She noted that OPLIN is legally defined by several
paragraphs in the state budget every two years, and the budget is
subject to many political pressures. In 1997 there was an attempt to
get OPLIN into permanent language, but the debate the debate turned to
filters on public library computers and the legislation was never
completed; Lynda thinks it is time to try again. If we can
get OPLIN into permanent law, then the second step would be to look for
state funding through OPLIN to help public libraries get databases.
Stephen Hedges explained how much LSTA money is now
used for databases and how the LCO partners pay for
databases. The State Library Board just approved LSTA
database funds for another year through June 30, 2008, but they would
prefer to use these LSTA funds as seed money for other projects.
Lynda further explained what would happen if OPLIN became
defined in permanent law. OPLIN would not become a new state agency,
but would remain a state entity within the State Library's
budget. OPLIN could get better terms from vendors by extending
contracts beyond two years. OLC is introducing an omnibus
bill next week, and the language developed in 1997 could be
updated and attached to that bill as an amendment.
The following resolution was drafted:
WHEREAS the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN)
was established in temporary law as part of the State biennial budget
passed on 30 June 1995, and
WHEREAS OPLIN has been defined again in every succeeding State
budget since 1995, and
WHEREAS the services OPLIN provides to Ohio public libraries
have become critical to their operations, and
WHEREAS negotiating statewide contracts for services and
databases is advantageous to the Ohio public library community, and
WHEREAS OPLIN could negotiate more favorable contracts for
statewide services if OPLIN were defined in permanent law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on the 8th day of June,
Two Thousand and Seven, the members of the Board of Trustees of the
Ohio Public Library Information Network request the Ohio Library
Council to initiate the process of asking the Ohio Legislature to
define OPLIN in permanent Ohio law, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board supports any measures
taken by the Ohio Library Council toward placing OPLIN in permanent law.
Mary Pat Essman moved to
accept the resolution, Terry Casey seconded. All aye.
Jo Budler noted that she will be writing something about what
was learned from the Library Summit. The biggest finding is
that the "core" of databases that all three communities find valuable
is actually smaller than what is currently offered. Also, all three
agree on the need for a physical statewide resource sharing system.
There was a general discussion about the Summit led by Board members
who attended. It was noted that the school library viewpoint is much
different from the public or academic viewpoint.
To Item 9.1
9.3. Circuit Upgrades Status
From Item 9.1
Karl Jendretzky explained that things have firmed up since the
last Board meeting and OPLIN now has a better idea of OIT’s
direction. The regional OPT-E-MAN services are being cut and the state
is going to handle "long haul" traffic on OSCnet.
Karl reviewed each individual case of a public library needing a
circuit upgrade. Stephen Hedges noted that the relationship between the
state network and the telecommunications companies is
changing. OPLIN staff are noticing more competition and
better price offerings, and OIT is taking over more of the cost of
running the network.
9.4. Web Hosting Status
Karl Jendretzky explained that OPLIN is now hosting a couple
of sites, including OHReadytoRead and Cardington Public
Library. Karl explained OPLIN’s current setup.
9.5. WebJunction
Online Training
Following up on the discussion at the Board retreat, Stephen
Hedges reported that he asked George Needham if WebJunction is going
to be upgrading its technology course selection, but has not had a
reply from George. OPLIN may need to look for an alternative
source of web training in technology.
Jo Budler is also looking at WebJunction deals. Jo
noted that the metro library directors have proposed buying 800 hours
of classes. The metros are currently paying to get this training
separately. If the State Library buys the hours, they will be offered
to every public library in the state, and WJ would set up a website
where libraries could placing training content that they had developed
themselves.
9.6.
Databases and Network Reports
9.6.1. Database usage
Stephen Hedges reported that all of the May statistics have
not yet arrived from vendors, but he thinks there will be a dip in the
May usage numbers similar to last year.
9.6.2. Support
Center (April and May)
Stephen noted that the OSC ticket activity was normal.
10. CHAIR'S REPORT
10.1. Executive Director's
Evaluation
Donna Perdzock noted that this would be her last report as
OPLIN Board Chair, and it has been a pleasure working with the Board
and serving as Chair. Donna will tally the evaluation forms for Stephen
Hedges, which have been distributed to Board members, asking that they
be returned to her by mid-July.
10.2. Board Officers for FY2008
Stephen Hedges noted that in the past the Board Nominations
Committee has also suggested a slate of new officers. The Vice Chair
traditionally becomes the Chair when needed and the Secretary and
Treasurer have basically oversight duties. Gayle Patton will open the
August meeting as the Vice Chair and the first order of business will
be electing officers.
Donna Perdzock appointed the outgoing officers leaving the
Board to act as the committee to recommend a slate of new officers.
10.3.
Set Board Meeting Dates and Times for FY2008
Donna
Perdzock reviewed the proposed meeting dates for next year.
Stephen Hedges suggested changing the meeting time to earlier, in order
to avoid lunch. There was a general discussion and consensus that 10:00
is better for people coming from far away. People can bring a
lunch or a snack on their own.
Gayle Patton
motioned to approve the proposed Board schedule, Bonnie Mathies
seconded. All aye.
10.4. Resolutions
Terry Casey read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, RICHARD MURDOCK has
been a
member of the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN) Board of
Trustees since July 2001, and
WHEREAS he has freely and
unselfishly
given of his time and efforts to ensure the success of OPLIN by serving
on the Board for six years, and
WHEREAS he has demonstrated
a firm sense of commitment and dedication to advancing public libraries
in Ohio, and
WHEREAS he has applied his
knowledge of industrial practices to guiding the OPLIN Board's business
and financial decisions, and
WHEREAS his service as a
trustee of the
Washington County Public Library gave him a unique perspective about
OPLIN and its services to libraries,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that on
the 8th day of June, Two Thousand and Seven, the members of the Board
of Trustees of the Ohio Public Library Information Network recognize
the significant contributions made to public libraries and library
service by RICHARD MURDOCK during his tenure with the Ohio Public
Library Information Network, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the Board
extends its most sincere thanks and appreciation to RICHARD MURDOCK for
his continued volunteer service as a member of that Board.
Mary Pat Essman read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, ANNE HINTON has
been a member of
the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN) Board of Trustees
since July 2001, and
WHEREAS she has freely and
unselfishly
given of her time and efforts to ensure the success of OPLIN by serving
on the Board for six years, and as the Treasurer of the Board from 2003
to the present, and
WHEREAS she has always been
willing to commit extra time and effort to exceptional duties on behalf
of OPLIN, and
WHEREAS her dedication and
attention to detail and timeliness have maintained OPLIN's integrity,
and
WHEREAS her experience as
Director of the
Huron Public Library gave her a unique perspective about OPLIN and its
services to all Ohio public libraries,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that on
the 8th day of June, Two Thousand and Seven, the members of the Board
of Trustees of the Ohio Public Library Information Network recognize
the significant contributions made to public libraries and library
service by ANNE HINTON during her tenure with the Ohio Public Library
Information Network, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the Board
extends its most sincere thanks and appreciation to ANNE HINTON for her
continued volunteer service as a member of that Board.
Gayle Patton read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, DONNA PERDZOCK has
been a member
of the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN) Board of
Trustees since July 2004, and
WHEREAS she has freely and
unselfishly
given of her time and efforts to ensure the success of OPLIN by serving
on the Board for three years, and as the Vice-Chair of the Board from
2005 to 2006, and as the Chair of the Board from 2006 to the present,
and
WHEREAS she skilfully guided
OPLIN and the Board through a time of change with foresight and good
humor, and
WHEREAS she kept the OPLIN
Board focused on the goal of improving services to the Ohio public
library community, and
WHEREAS her knowledge of the
public
library community and her experience as Director of the Euclid Public
Library allowed her to contribute a unique perspective to discussions
about OPLIN and its services to libraries,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that on
the 8th day of June, Two Thousand and Seven, the members of the Board
of Trustees of the Ohio Public Library Information Network recognize
the significant contributions made to public libraries and library
service by DONNA PERDZOCK during her tenure with the Ohio Public
Library Information Network, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the Board
extends its most sincere thanks and appreciation to DONNA PERDZOCK for
her continued volunteer service as a member of that Board.
Bonnie Mathies read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, SANDI THOMPSON has
been a member
of the Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN) Board of
Trustees since July 2001, and
WHEREAS she has freely and
unselfishly
given of her time and efforts to ensure the success of OPLIN by serving
on the Board for six years, and as the Treasurer of the Board from 2002
to 2003, and as the Secretary of the Board from 2003 to the present, and
WHEREAS she has carefully
and diligently
represented the interests and needs of Ohio's small and rural public
libraries to the OPLIN Board, and
WHEREAS her quiet wisdom and
dedication will be missed by all members of the OPLIN Board, and
WHEREAS her service as
Director of the
Puskarich Public Library gave her an important perspective of OPLIN and
its services to libraries,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that on
the 8th day of June, Two Thousand and Seven, the members of the Board
of Trustees of the Ohio Public Library Information Network recognize
the significant contributions made to public libraries and library
service by SANDI THOMPSON during her tenure with the Ohio Public
Library Information Network, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that
the Board
extends its most sincere thanks and appreciation to SANDI THOMPSON for
her continued volunteer service as a member of that Board.
Terry Casey
motioned to approve the resolutions and express gratitude to the
outgoing Board members, Bob Richmond seconded. All aye.
11. PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION (2)
The Chair called for public
participation, and there was none.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Gayle Patton motioned to adjourn the meeting at 12:59
p.m.
April 13, 2007 Minutes
April 13, 2007 Minutes hedgesstOHIO PUBLIC
LIBRARY INFORMATION NETWORK (OPLIN)
ONE HUNDRED FIRST REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES
& ANNUAL BOARD RETREAT
Minutes – April
13, 2007
1. WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER
The one hundred first meeting of the Ohio Public
Library Information Network (OPLIN) Board of Trustees was called to order at
9:32 a.m. on Friday, April 13, 2007 by Board Chair Donna Perdzock at the eTech
Ohio Commission offices in Columbus, Ohio.
Present were Board members: Jim Kenzig, Donna Perdzock,
Bonnie Mathies, Anne Hinton, Mary Pat Essman, Gayle Patton, and Richard
Murdock. Terry Casey arrived at 9:35 a.m., and Sandi Thompson arrived at 9:38
a.m.
Also present were: Stephen Hedges (OPLIN), Joel Husenits
(OPLIN), Karl Jendretzky (OPLIN), Bobbi Galvin (OPLIN), Jo Budler (State
Library), Diane Fink (State Library), and Carol Verny (OHIONET).
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (1)
The Chair called for public participation, and there
was none.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Richard Murdock motioned to approve the agenda,
Bonnie Mathies seconded. All aye.
4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Gayle Patton suggested that the Board minutes were
generally too detailed, and asked whether they should be more succinct. There
was a general discussion about what level of editing would be appropriate, and
whether the current length of the Board minutes is cumbersome.
Terry Casey motioned to table the approval of the
minutes from the February 9, 2007 meeting until the next Board meeting, Gayle
Patton seconded. All aye.
Stephen Hedges said the OPLIN staff would bring a
revised version of the February minutes to the next meeting.
5. FINANCE REPORT
Diane Fink gave a detailed finance report. Report A
covered budget and expenditures for fiscal years (FY) 2006 and 2007. One
library decided their Board would not accept the filtering grant, but all of
the other grants have been paid out. Report B covered non-General Revenue Fund
(GRF) cash balance for FY 2006 and 2007. Report C covered Gates Staying
Connected Grant funds.
Report D covered revenue and cash balance for FY
2006-2007, estimating receipts and disbursements. This report makes the
assumption that all budgeted dollars will be paid by June 30, but with no major
infrastructure upgrades scheduled before then some of this money will be
unspent. Karl Jendretzky’s previous position was paid out of 4S4 funds, but
his current one is funded from GRF. His old position is now open.
Report E tracked budget requests and projections for
FY 2007 through FY 2009, and showed what the State Library submitted for OPLIN
for the FY 2008-09 budgets. On March 15, the Governor released his budget
recommendation. OPLIN would receive the amount requested, but not the
additional 3% that agencies were asked to submit, so OPLIN would have the same
funding level for the next fiscal year. The State Library would maintain a 100%
funding level, but other state agencies did not.
The House budget hearing for the State Library was
held during the last week of March; Jo Budler testified.
Gayle Patton motioned to approve the finance
report, Mary Pat Essman seconded.
Roll call: Jim Kenzig, aye; Donna Perdzock, aye;
Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Mary Pat Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye;
Richard Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye; and Sandi Thompson, aye
6. OLD BUSINESS
6.a. New Board members -- Nominations Committee
Donna Perdzock explained that the Board members
leaving in July are on the committee: Anne Hinton, Richard Murdock, Sandi
Thompson, and Donna. They have met virtually over the last six weeks to
discuss the 14 applications they received. Donna reviewed the spreadsheet detailing
the different nominees. The factors to consider were: size of library they
currently represent; general job duties there; geography of the candidates
around the state; and to a much lesser degree, their gender. The State Library
Board would like to have a slate of names to choose from.
The recommendations from the Nominating Committee
are: Benjamin Chinni (President of the Euclid Public Library Board); Laura
Solomon (Web Applications Supervisor for Cleveland Public Library); Gary
Branson (Director of London Public Library); Karl Colon (Director of Greene
County Public Library); Don Barlow (Director of Westerville Public Library);
and Mike Wantz (Director of Perry County District Library).
Donna noted that there are five positions to fill:
four are expirations and will start three-year terms ending in 2010, and one is
a resigned position with a term ending in 2009. Donna stated that she is
willing to stand for reappointment, but not 100% certain that she can stand for
a three-year term.
Gayle Patton noted that most of the recommendations
were from northeast Ohio. Terry Casey pointed out that population-wise, that
represents most of the state. Jo Budler explained that the State Library Board
is very conscious of the demographic representation. There was a general
discussion about the pros and cons of the various candidates.
Anne Hinton noted that she was also interested in
the circulation systems of the libraries the various candidates represent.
Gayle Patton asked to add Jeff Wale to the list of
recommended candidates, and Terry Casey seconded that.
Mary Pat Essman motioned to submit the
aforementioned seven names to the State Library Board for their consideration,
Gayle Patton seconded. All aye.
7. NEW BUSINESS (Board Retreat presentation of
information)
7.a. Ohio Web Library
7.a.i. Development of Ohio Web Library
7.a.i.1. History
Stephen Hedges reviewed the history of the Ohio Web
Library project. The OWL web site (ohioweblibrary.org) was initially set up in
2005 to promote the LCO databases, along with the LibrariesConnectOhio.org.
Stephen showed both of the sites.
The problem with the sites as they are now is that
users can get to the databases, but they have to go through many steps to do
so. They were set up more as advocacy pages, and not necessarily as a useful
portal to the OWL content. Stephen has talked with the other LCO partners
about taking the OWL page and turning it into something cleaner and more useful
as a database portal.
A parallel idea is to split the OPLIN web site by
placing the databases and content on the OWL site. The OPLIN site currently has
two audiences: libraries and the general public. The thought is that we could
split it so that oplin.org remains for the libraries (with OPLIN policies,
info, etc.) and the OWL site becomes the place for the public to get to the
databases and OPLIN content, and possibly more (Resource Sharing, WorldCat,
etc.) in order to not just see electronic resources, but also books and open
content off of the web.
The questions for the Board are: should OPLIN split
its web site; and how should OPLIN brand the sites? The Ohio Web Library is
not branded as an OPLIN service right now.
7.a.i.2. Concept 1 demo
Stephen Hedges demonstrated an Ohio Web Library
concept page using Google Custom Search as the search engine. Google Custom
Search allows you to only search predetermined websites. There are many
reputable, freely available websites to draw from, but what is not available is
access to the subscription electronic databases that we purchase. EBSCO
promises that their data will be in Google soon. NetWellness is already open,
and a subset of the entire OCLC WorldCat catalog is open to Google.
OPLIN staff would also like an OWL search engine to
search the MORE catalog, so that people can see what is in Ohio library
catalogs.
Stephen explained to the Board how Googlebots work.
Commercial vendors typically keep the bot out, because they do not want their
data on Google. Some vendors set up a special database for Google to index,
which is how you get the “Find in a Library” tagged Google results that point
to WorldCat.
7.a.i.3. Concept 2 demo
Stephen Hedges then presented another OWL concept,
with a search engine (MasterKey) built by IndexData, which is based on more
traditional library technology. It is harder to set up, but you can get to
more subscription resources. EBSCO, for example, already has OpenURL
technology that allows libraries to incorporate their links into a catalog, and
this technology would also allow access via MasterKey.
This could be another option for the OWL, but in
this case OPLIN might have to release an RFP to have someone set it up for us.
To Item 7.a.ii.
7.a.i.4. KSU Usability Lab
Stephen Hedges mentioned that OPLIN would want to
use the Kent State Usability Lab to test the OWL web site before it is
released. OPLIN should be able to get a discounted price, since we are
non-profit. Ideally, staff would like to develop several different versions
and have them comment on the layout, etc.
Stephen further explained that INFOhio and OHIOLINK
have their own interfaces that the schools and academics are already accustomed
to using. The OWL web site would be an interface for everybody, with the
assumption that anyone who goes there is a public library customer or Ohio
resident. OPLIN has not received any negative feedback from any of the LCO
partners on this.
Jo Budler explained the State Library Board’s recent
funding commitments for OWL content. They want to evaluate the content
currently offered and establish new pricing on it. This may potentially mean
new or different databases. The Board will vote on LSTA funding at their May
meeting, and there should be a formal commitment then.
7.a.ii. Web site split
Terry Casey suggested that OPLIN (and libraries in
general) need to promote how and why any library–related search is better than
Google.
Stephen explained that the vision is to get OWL up
and running so well that OPLIN can then do serious promotion of it, but only if
it works well first. Neither of these options seem like they would require an
exceptional amount of maintenance.
Jim Kenzig expressed that he sees this model as
essentially the same as Google, but with a longer name to type in. It seems
like this is going away from the “premium content” model that OPLIN has already
established. Jim thinks that the OneSearch federated search model is a more
appropriate direction.
Jo Budler expressed that this OWL concept is trying
to broaden things for the public, because nobody understands what OPLIN is.
Stephen Hedges noted that reference librarians are
not enamored with OPLIN’s current WebFeat system. Many library websites have a
catalog search and then OPLIN OneSearch somewhere else on the screen. The goal
here is to get it all into one search box. Ideally, OPLIN would be able to
move the content we are buying up in the relevance list, if that’s possible.
The vision is to develop a better OneSearch that
also pulls in content from the free web, and to make the whole thing behave
more like Google.
Sandi Thompson asked if libraries would be able to
tie a revamped Ohio Web Library search into their own catalogs. Stephen
explained that the OPLIN staff would like this to be a basic part of the web
page templates OPLIN would provide for public libraries interested in the OPLIN
web hosting service.
There was a general discussion about the popularity
of Google versus library search services.
Sandi Thompson said that she believes OPLIN should
be the "chaser": the organization trying new things. If this is a
good thing to try, then the OPLIN staff should.
Jo Budler stated that the State Library has made a commitment
to marketing and putting money into it. They would like OPLIN to put together
a good product and market it.
Terry Casey said he thinks OPLIN should pay Google
money and partner and come up with something, instead of creating something
brand new. He feels it would be cheaper to pull off and gain quicker
acceptance.
Stephen Hedges summed up the discussion. OPLIN staff
want to work the library catalog into the OWL search, and there appears to be
no resistance to the idea of splitting the OPLIN web site. What about
branding? Do we keep the OPLIN brand off of it?
There was general agreement from the Board that a
small link explaining where this information is coming from would be
sufficient, but that it does not have to be prominently placed.
Karl Jendretzky explained a possible method by which
OPLIN could integrate premium purchased content into the main Google search.
However, some database vendors might not want us to put their data into
Google.
Stephen Hedges noted that the salespeople from
Wilson did not object to the idea. OPLIN owns the Wilson Biographies content.
OPLIN would only be asking the vendors to allow us to show the link to the
premium content, and then OPLIN would do the authentication.
OPLIN has already been promoting the idea of putting
MARC records into library catalogs, but now staff would like to put the library
catalogs into the OWL.
OPLIN might have to put out an RFP for someone to
develop this, and it might cost some money, likely a few thousand dollars to
various vendors.
To Item 7.a.i.4.
7.a.iii. Open Internet content in Ohio
Web Library
7.a.iii.1. MARC
7.a.iii.2. OAI-PMH
7.a.iii.3. Google
Stephen Hedges noted that Karl Jendretzky’s document
was already out of date; changes were made regarding “sitemap” yesterday.
7.a.iv. Marketing OWL
7.a.iv.1. Branding
Stephen Hedges sensed that the OWL page would not
need an OPLIN logo on it, but some line mentioning LCO/OPLIN with a link back
to the OPLIN web site.
The Board generally approved of OPLIN staff moving
ahead on this plan.
There was a break at 11:10 a.m.
The meeting resumed at 11:22 a.m.
Stephen Hedges reported that OCLC is already doing
work related to what we are talking about, with a new product called WorldCat
Local. Stephen showed a web page about it on the OCLC web site.
Carol Verny (OHIONET) explained the program, which
aims to get library holdings out onto the web. A number of libraries around the
country are using this program to push their holdings up into the Google/Amazon
environment, in order to reach non-traditional library users. WorldCat Local
takes the WorldCat database and moves it from a librarians’ utility into
something that they think people who start searches on Google will find more
appealing. It has a much simpler interface. The attempt of the program is to
identify publishers that will reveal their content on the web, and to do
authentication in a secure but effective way to allow patrons to get to these
things online. The University of Washington Library is going to be the pilot
test, followed by a group of southern California libraries, and then the
University of Illinois.
WorldCat Local could also be a face to fit over what
libraries have as their local OPAC. The authentication would not be done by
library card or zip code, but based on their affiliations. Certain results
would be pushed to the top of the list. So if OPLIN were providing this for
the State of Ohio, its list of proprietary databases would be pushed to the top
of the search results.
Jo Budler noted that if the State Library has
something like this to show state employees, they could pitch it as an entire
state service. The State Library has asked OCLC to put them on the pilot
testing list after the University of Illinois.
Carol Verny noted that the main obstacle is that the
OCLC database is proprietary; if a library does not catalog with OCLC, then
they cannot use WorldCat Local. But libraries are more and more interested in
opening up their holdings to the world.
Jo Budler hopes that the State Library will
implement it this fall.
Carol Verny noted that WorldCat Local does not
require libraries to change what they have in place for resource sharing, etc.
It connects to most everything. This is a fundamental shift in philosophy in
recognizing that libraries do not want to give up what they have developed over
time.
Stephen Hedges wondered whether, keeping in mind
that OPLIN has significant E-rate money coming in every year, someone should
approach OCLC about doing WorldCat for all Ohio public libraries?
7.b. Technology Training
7.b.i. Training support
7.b.i.1. WebJunction
e-learning catalog (block of classes for State?)
Stephen Hedges explained that OPLIN could purchase a
block of WebJunction e-learning classes for the state with available E-rate money.
OPLIN has a new goal in the recently approved strategic plan to sponsor
conferences and training pertaining to new web technologies. WebJunction
classes are classes anyone can buy and take over the web. One block of classes
is called “web development classes” and if you buy them in a block, you get a
discount.
Jim Kenzig suggested that the list of offerings
presented is out-of-date, and Stephen said he needs to ask WebJunction if they
are planning to update their offerings.
Sandi Thompson said she took a couple of WebJunction
classes along with her staff, and said they are similar to other online classes
in structure.
Stephen Hedges explained that OPLIN would want to
spend money on buying web technology classes for anyone in an Ohio public
library and would have to make sure that they relate to current technology.
OPLIN could control the IP of the person taking the class; it would have to be
from a library IP.
Diane Fink noted that the State Library bought a
block of WebJunction courses through OCLC for the Rural Sustainability Grant.
Attendees were given one free class.
Stephen explained that if the Board likes this idea,
OPLIN staff can shop around. The courses need to be current and students would
need to use a library computer to do it. We do not have to pursue WebJunction
specifically.
Jim Kenzig suggested that Content Management System
training might be more beneficial for libraries.
Gayle Patton expressed that the offer would likely
be well-received by the public library community.
7.b.ii. Conference support
7.b.ii.1. Overview
Stephen Hedges provided a summary of what OPLIN has
spent on conferences during 2006. OPLIN has not spent any money yet in FY2007,
but have committed money to the Library Partnership Summit, the OLC Annual
Conference, and TechConnections 8.
7.b.ii.2. TechConnections 8
correspondence
Karl Jendretzky and Stephen are presenting at TechConnections
8; Stephen recommends increasing OPLIN’s support to $2000.
Mary Pat Essman motioned to spend $2000 for TechConnections
8 sponsorship, Gayle Patton seconded. All aye.
Roll call: Jim Kenzig, aye; Donna Perdzock, aye;
Bonnie Mathies, aye; Anne Hinton, aye; Mary Pat Essman, aye; Gayle Patton, aye;
Richard Murdock, aye; Terry Casey, aye; and Sandi Thompson, aye.
7.c. Network Development
7.c.i. New State fiber-optic contract
7.c.i.1. OPT-E-MAN Ethernet
-- "lines vs. clouds"
Stephen Hedges explained that there are many new
network developments. In February, OIT signed a new contract with AT&T for
Ethernet services statewide. In this discussion, Stephen would like to explain
what is different about Ethernet compared to what we have now, what has changed
in the state contracts, what changes are coming in the statewide backbone, the
status of circuit upgrades, and finally have a conversation about bandwidth and
the formula we use for allocating circuit capacities to libraries.
Ethernet services for libraries would mean putting
fiber optic lines into buildings instead of copper T1 lines. Stephen explained
how T1 lines work, their size, capacity, etc. T1 lines work well for data, but
have their genesis in voice communications.
Ethernet cable costs more and is harder to work
with, because it is more delicate. It works with light; each channel is a
different color. It’s much more efficient, and can have many channels running
on different colors.
Once a signal gets out of a library and out to a
carrier (AT&T, etc.), it is carried on a line all the way back to the OPLIN
core at the SOCC. With fiber optic cable and Ethernet, it is a different
system; the carrier is called a cloud. There is no physical hard line from
here to there; instead the hard line goes into a cloud that can cover a large
area, it passes through the cloud and comes out where needed.
Karl Jendretzky explained that with Ethernet, OPLIN
would pay for a port at either end of the cloud, instead of a line. OPLIN
would also pay for the speed on that port (the amount of data you can put into
the cloud). If you want to create additional connections later, no other lines
need to be run. If you want to set up additional VLANs (virtual local area
networks), you can have virtual connections throughout the cloud.
Clouds are currently set up in different metro
areas. With the new AT&T contract, they have three pricing points – you
pay for the port, the CIR (the speed your port is allowed to go to), and ROS
(regional OPT-E-MAN service). OPT-E-MAN can set up an entire metro area to look
like it’s on one LAN. There are different grades on the state contract (CSME,
bronze, silver, etc.) and each has a better level of Quality of Service and
faster speed guarantees.
The price is postalized, so it does not matter where
you are in the state. Service in Cleveland is the same as service in Caldwell.
The missing piece is how to tie the regional metro
clouds together. ROS is a cloud that holds two others together, so you can
send traffic from one metro area to another as Ethernet, end to end.
There was a general discussion about dark fiber.
Karl explained that it does not take much fiber to run a network. The Third
Frontier basically runs on two strands around the state. OPLIN put in 24
strands from the building's telecommunications closet to our office, but uses
only one strand and thus created a very small amount of “dark fiber.” Fiber
brokers go around and figure out who has dark fiber and who needs it. We are
not interested in owning any fiber; we want the service that AT&T offers
and let them manage the fiber.
Karl talked about Cleveland’s coming purchase of a
fiber optic network; they are buying enough capacity for their branches, but
they can handle more later. Ethernet allows them to upgrade capacity without
any new connections.
Karl also explained the costs involved when
installing fiber. AT&T does a site survey and decides if you need space for
equipment, new holes into your building, etc. – this would be the library’s
cost.
Time Warner Telecom also has a contract, and they
would take care of all the costs.
The meeting was halted for lunch at 12:11 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 12:30 p.m.
Stephen Hedges explained that the advantages of
fiber are that if OPLIN needed to upgrade a circuit later, it would be very
easy. Network technicians would not have to go to the public library; a
software setting could just be changed remotely. Network traffic is much more
efficient as well, as staff saw when we hooked up Worthington and Westerville.
Their T1s had been a bottleneck to some extent, but with Ethernet their traffic
traveled better and usage jumped significantly. Stephen thinks we will find
that it is not just the size of the connection, but the type of connection that
can choke bandwidth.
The smallest Ethernet is 5Mpbs, which is the
equivalent of over three T1 lines. 10mbps Ethernet is a better price point.
Then it jumps to 20, 50, 100, and 1000Mbps. We have a 1000Mbps connection
between the OPLIN office and the SOCC. In our case, this is a different
service, an actual line. Stephen explained the OPLIN-SOCC connection in
detail.
Stephen continued that the carriers suggest that
Ethernet is going to be “the thing” for a long time. They will continue to
support T1 lines, but they want to get everyone on Ethernet.
Karl explained that it’s a fairly new way of doing
things. The regional services are essentially tests here in Ohio.
There was another break at 12:36 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 1:09 p.m.
7.c.ii. Circuit upgrades
7.c.ii.1. Status report
Stephen Hedges presented a chart of pending circuit
upgrades at various public libraries. OPLIN staff has previously identified 18
libraries that needed more bandwidth under the new allocation formula. In most
of those cases, OPLIN has either picked up the billing for libraries paying for
an extra T1, or OPLIN has installed a new T1 (particularly in the Cleveland
area). Some libraries are already taking on their own upgrades.
Cleveland Public Library is installing OPT-E-MAN to
their branches. They are waiting until after July 1 to install, so they can
E-rate it. It will take time to get the branches up, the work orders
processed, etc., and connecting the other CLEVNET libraries will not begin
until that is done. OPLIN is going to put in extra T1s in the meantime. With
the new AT&T contract, OPLIN would not be penalized if we disconnect it
within a year.
For a couple of the upgrades, OPLIN is working with
Time Warner Telecom, which is able to give us good deals in the southwest
corner of the state. We have proposals from them, but are waiting for approval
from OIT. Stephen reviewed each case for the Board.
OPLIN has something working on all 18 cases.
Stephen feels certain that any public library can
buy Ethernet on the state contract, since OPT-E-MAN services are addendums to
the SOMACS contract. The libraries doing their own OPT-E-MAN deals have been
dealing with AT&T one-on-one.
Stephen reviewed the OIT document outlining pricing
for CSME vs. OPTEMAN. For CSME, there are no Quality of Service guarantees,
and only three speeds. For OPT-E-MAN, there are more speed options, plus QoS
guarantees. Stephen also reviewed the regional OPT-E-MAN service, which is a
separate contract.
Stephen also explained in detail how the billing
works out. Different pieces – port, CIR, ROS - are priced separately, which
can be complicated.
7.c.ii.1.a. Wagnalls-CLC
request for circuit
Stephen Hedges explained that OPLIN just got this
request a couple of days ago. Each Central Library Consortium library has a
line that comes from their public library building to a central point (not to
the SOCC). To use their shared catalog, the traffic goes back and forth. In
reviewing the connections for Discovery Place, CLC, Ashtabula, CLEVNET, and
SEO, staff found they are all shared catalogs with no direct connections to
each other.
CLC has asked us to install a line for Wagnalls
Public Library. Right now the line CLC is using for their catalog is
considered to be Wagnalls’ connection. For Cleveland Public Library, a similar
situation, OPLIN provides them a DS3 to do this; a single aggregated line back
to Columbus that carries their traffic as well as the CLEVNET traffic.
CLC now wants a separate T1 line from Wagnalls back
to the SOCC. The question is, should OPLIN provide a connection to a
consortium like that? In the case of Cleveland, we do not.
In the past, OPLIN has considered assuming a network
management charge to CLC. Wagnalls was not an official library in 1996, but
OPLIN provided a line anyway. Should we do what CLC is asking: install a
separate line for Wagnalls Library, and let them pay for their original line to
Columbus?
CLC wants to split staff traffic from public traffic
(back to Columbus). The Wagnalls connection is E-ratable. OPLIN is not paying
for that connection right now, but down the line it may qualify. If we do
that, does Cleveland then say – pay for ours too?
In short, do we provide connections to a consortium?
There was a general discussion about the history of Wagnalls
and funding. Stephen noted that they now qualify as Ohio public library 251,
and receive LLGSF. But in 1996, when we put the connection to Lithopolis, they
were not official.
Sandi Thompson noted that most upgrades happen when
a library is maxing their bandwidth. If Wagnalls is not, then why should OPLIN
upgrade their line?
Stephen noted that OPLIN now provides connections to
public libraries, regionals, the State Library, and SEO. (When Kent State
University moves into the State Library, we will not support their
connection.) Do we add consortiums to that list?
Stephen explained that OPLIN staff can put in the
work order to hook up Wagnalls. But at some point, the OPLIN Board needs to
decide on a policy: do we or don’t we provide connections to a consortium?
7.c.iii. Library systems installing
Ethernet ports
Stephen Hedges explained that this was already
covered in the chart he provided earlier.
7.c.iv. Discussion of new formula for
allocating bandwidth
7.c.iv.1. Proposal for next
year's formula
Stephen Hedges explained the various components of
the bills we receive from OIT. When we recently upgraded Worthington to
Ethernet, our bill for bandwidth increased tremendously, so OPLIN staff have
been talking with OIT about the way they do the billing. OIT has a target in
mind for how much money it will take to pay for total public library
bandwidth. The T1 rate was set years ago, and they never adjusted the
pricing. So when we added Ethernet, they raised the charges based on the new
estimated usage of Ethernet to make up for what they have undercharged on T1s.
Stephen reviewed a chart of total OPLIN traffic
going through the SOCC. Karl Jendretzky explained the chart. Instead of going
library-by-library, OPLIN would like OIT to charge us based on our total usage
each month. OIT has mentioned charging OPLIN $60/Mbps instead of $90, which is
much more in line with the industry standard.
Also, OPLIN and OIT are talking about changing the
bills slightly, to get a better E-rate discount. Our network management RFQ is
officially dead now, because it was not in the best interest of the state, nor
is it in the best interests of OPLIN if we E-rate the entire OIT bill. The
vendors should have been notified by OIT, but some are just finding out.
OIT has a new CIO, and on July 1, OIT will go under
OBM. OIT folks seems to like this change, and are more upbeat about the
future.
Discussion of the new formula was picked up later
under item 7.d.iv.
7.c.v. OSCnet and ohio.gov (OIT) network
7.c.v.1. Comparison
7.c.v.2. Glossary of network
terms
7.c.v.3. Announcement of
OIT/OBM merger
The backbone of the state network is going to change
under Governor Strickland. It is not official yet, but the “Next Generation”
network is becoming clearer.
OSCnet (formerly Third Frontier Network) and OIT
were competing with each other for state business. OPLIN has had overtures
from OSCnet for years to put our traffic on their network with colleges and
schools. Stephen Hedges reviewed a breakdown between the organizations, who
they serve and what they provide.
The NextGen network looks like it will be a
combination of OIT and OSCnet. OSCnet will carry state traffic long distances,
and OIT will handle things like network management and last mile services.
Nobody has decided how they are going to do it yet, but that means the ROS piece
of the new state contract with AT&T would actually be handled by OSCnet
instead.
Stephen explained that a semi-merger between OSCnet
and OIT would not necessarily improve compatibility between OPLIN services and
those offered by OhioLINK and INFOhio. The network architecture does not
affect services you can get as much as it effects deeper, carrier-level
things. The services you put over the network are not going to change. A
subtle change might occur though; OPLIN could have traffic from a public library
that goes directly to a college, so it would not have to bounce out to the
Internet and back.
Stephen and Karl explained what changes would happen
to OPLIN Internet traffic on OSCnet vs. the current OIT configuration.
Karl explained that there is not a lot of info to go
on right now, and outlined how OSCnet would probably work. Stephen suggested
that it would give OPLIN a level of robustness and redundancy we do not
currently have. OIT would have to provide routers. Karl noted that it would
also deconstruct our current core arrangement.
Stephen explained that OPLIN can only mark time
until this gets figured out. A push is coming from the Strickland
administration, and when they get it together, we can start aggressively moving
ahead on installing Ethernet. If it does not come together, the state contract
is the fallback. For now, OIT has the final say on each new library
connection, whether it uses the AT&T contract or OSCnet.
7.c.vi. Bandwidth prices
7.c.vii. Network management
7.c.viii. Caching and compressing trials
Stephen Hedges reviewed OPLIN’s trials with caching
engines, a way to reduce the amount of bandwidth used by public libraries. The
Stratacache devices, which worked great as a trial in Cincinnati, but then
would not work at all for OPLIN (even after their engineers became involved),
have been donated to Cleveland Public Library. If they can cache some of their
traffic, it will reduce our total bandwidth.
Stephen explained that OPLIN is also working with
Jim Kenzig and his public library with a new device that compresses traffic on
the web. The trial period is done, and already generated charts for
comparisons. The device reduced traffic by a third with no noticeable drop in
quality, but it is rather expensive – you would have to install one on each end
of a given circuit. OPLIN and OIT staff are also trying different things on
the routers to see if they can compress traffic.
Part of the network upgrade between OPLIN and the
SOCC was so OPLIN staff can set up test networks and try things out, instead of
looking for library volunteers.
7.d. Web Services Development
7.d.i. “Server farm” ideas
Stephen Hedges reviewed the web hosting document.
Karl and Stephen were discussing commercial web hosts and the services they
provide, and decided to map out what OPLIN is capable of doing. OPLIN would
have much less storage and support than a commercial host could provide, but
OPLIN staff do not think public libraries would need that much. We would
provide web site templates, FTP access, subscription databases, PHPMyAdmin,
forum software, one free domain name, unlimited subdomains, a statistics
package, a possible secure (SSL) server, etc.
Stephen explained that there is no inherent problem
with commercial services, but some libraries might prefer having OPLIN do it.
We would not provide a separate e-mail server, ILS hosting, or an individual
chat server.
7.d.ii. SAN in place for web hosting
7.d.ii.1. OPLIN-SOCC diagram
7.d.ii.2. Firewalls
Karl Jendretzky reviewed changes that will soon
happen with OPLIN’s local network configuration, advantages of the new
arrangement, and how it will help with web hosting. Our office and SOCC
servers are on separate networks; integrating the firewalls of the two is
tricky, and our support structure is problematic.
7.d.iii. Templates for library web sites
7.d.iii.1. Plone, Drupal
& Wordpress
Stephen Hedges explained that since OPLIN almost has
the hardware for web hosting ready, we now have to develop the service itself.
Part of this is developing web page templates.
Stephen reviewed the Plinkit service, already used
in Oregon and based on Plone software, which provides web page templates for
libraries.
Jo Budler and Stephen asked Plinkit about pricing
this for Ohio, but the price seemed too high for just a template and a nice
manual. The money is supposedly used to develop the program further.
Stephen figured that if 10% of public libraries use
our web hosting service, OPLIN will meet its goal. The target is small
libraries that do not have the technical expertise to keep their own web
servers. If the accompanying web templates are very nice, a few medium-size
libraries might be interested, too.
7.d.iv. Library Services Manager
7.d.iv.1. Proposed qualifications
7.d.iv.2. Position
description
7.d.iv.3. Draft Job Posting
Stephen Hedges reviewed the posting for the Library
Services Manager position. He focused on minimum qualifications and preferred
qualifications, and is convinced that we need someone with library experience.
Diane Fink reported that the hiring control period
has been extended through the end of April. Exceptions to the first period
were limited to health/safety positions, but the second one is looser. Any
open job critical to the management and administration of an agency can be
submitted for an exception. Diane does not know if the period will be extended
again.
Stephen thinks OPLIN should wait until the end of
April, and if the period is extended again, we can ask for an exemption.
At this point in the meeting, the conversation
circled back to a discussion about bandwidth allocation.
Different types of traffic run over different ports
(Internet traffic on port 80, e-mail on something else, chat on something else,
etc.). Stephen Hedges asked whether OPLIN should allow anomalous traffic (Runescape,
etc.) to drive our policies on bandwidth, or do we only count “legitimate”
traffic, based on the port usage? Also, what about wireless? Stephen is
working on a proposal looking at the type of traffic, not just the amount, and
basing the bandwidth formula on that somehow. Karl has talked to engineers at
the SOCC, and it seems possible to do it this way. The question is, should we
do it this way?
Donna Perdzock asked about outgoing bandwidth. In
the future, public libraries may be using bandwidth for videos (for example,
Euclid has city council meetings on her web site), podcasting, etc.
Stephen explained that transmit bandwidth is
normally far behind receive bandwidth; in fact, if a library's traffic does not
display this pattern, OPLIN looks for a virus. In the near term, he does not
anticipate any problem with need for transmit bandwidth for videos, etc.. The
OPLIN Board will probably tweak the formula every year anyway, should that problem
develop.
Karl suggested that down the road, high-quality
video will probably come from a more torrent-style distributed network, instead
of loaded onto a single web server.
7.e. Database Development
7.e.i. Budget
7.e.i.1. Governor's Executive
Budget
7.e.i.2. House Bill 119
7.3.i.3. Database budget
Stephen Hedges reviewed the Governor’s recommended
budget for OPLIN, which is flat-funded. He explained the particular line item
that looks like we asked for a 59% increase, but is actually an accounting
anomaly; this is just a request for spending authority, not a request for state
funds.
OPLIN is defined in the text of House Bill 119. It
is the same language as the year before, except for the filtering software
funds; the legislature proposes to take out the language saying 50% has to be
spent on filter purchases.
7.e.ii. Database selection/priority
7.3.ii.1. Correspondence with
Content Selection Committee
Stephen Hedges explained that the OPLIN Board needs
to talk about where we want to spend money in our budget. He reviewed a
breakdown of what we spend on our individual databases. Many databases are
covered by LSTA money (Newsbank, LearningExpress Library), but we put in money
for EBSCO, Encyclopedia Britannica, NoveList, Consumer Health Complete, Wilson
Biographies, and Ohio Capital Connection.
Stephen noted that he started a conversation with
the Content Selection Committee about dropping Consumer Health Complete. He
also started talking with OHIONET about taking over the group database
contracts, and everyone thought that was fine. OHIONET will handle billing and
contract stuff, and OPLIN will handle support. This arrangement went over well
at the Northeast OLC Chapter Conference, and will simplify things for
libraries.
Carol Verny reported that OHIONET has issued 550
quotes to public libraries about optional databases.
Dropping Consumer Health Complete was considered
because OPLIN has only had it a year; it was purchased as an extra because we
had extra money. Health information is an area where there is already a lot of
free info on the Internet. CHC is a nice resource, but Stephen felt not enough
people were using it to justify the cost. EBSCO points out that first couple
of months were slow, but recently use been more consistent.
NetWellness is open to Google, unlike CHC. They
shared their server logs for 2006 with us. The statistics are not as detailed,
but NetWellness clearly gets much heavier use than CHC and does not currently
cost OPLIN anything. Note that the extra 3% in our budget requests would have
gone towards NetWellness development. Gov. Strickland's staff is now working
with the FCC to get a grant for NetWellness.
The Content Advisory Committee is concerned about
stability. Once OPLIN gives libraries a particular database, it is tough to
take it away.
Stephen reviewed the amount of E-rate funds used for
databases. He anticipates getting $1 million back in early FY 2008. The question
is: should OPLIN spend a half-million from E-rate for databases, as we have in
past? We may be looking at a half-million in network upgrades. We have a lot
of Cisco routers near the end of their life, and we are talking about running
Ethernet services; in the next fiscal year, we will probably be upgrading a lot
of routers, and we really should do all of them. That might add up to a
million dollars.
Jim Kenzig said OPLIN should plan to do router
upgrades every three years or so anyway.
Stephen suggested OPLIN might be able to start doing
some of them, but not all at one time. We have the money to do that, though.
What should we spend $500,000 on, or do we just keep it in the bank?
Stephen noted that it also looks like we are going
to get the E-rate refund that we appealed. The FCC has been granting a lot of
appeals recently, to the point where one Congress person has started
questioning the number of times the FCC has apparently been waiving E-rate
rules. OPLIN staff are not sure if that will affect OPLIN or not, but we might
well get our appeal approved in the next couple of months. If so,
reimbursements jump to about $2 million. So what do we buy?
One option would be for OPLIN to take over library
branch connections as well as the main ones. That would cost about $2 million
a year. OPLIN could recover part of the cost from libraries.
OPLIN could also put the money into OWL development,
buying WorldCat for all of the Ohio libraries, etc.
Stephen does not think OPLIN can spend $1 million a
year on network upgrades, and if we do our E-rate paperwork right, we should
get a million every year.
Diane Fink noted that if OPLIN takes over the
branches, and supposing that E-rate ends three years from now, OPLIN would have
to take a service away. Diane further noted that OBM still has the authority
to take money that is sitting unspent in 4S4/rotary accounts (they did just
that a few years ago). If OPLIN has a plan, a justification for how we are
going to spend 4S4 funds, that would be better than it just sitting there.
A general discussion ensued about what the
priorities should be for spending this money: databases, equipment,
development, PR/marketing, out-of-the-box ideas like statewide WorldCat, etc.?
Gayle Patton and Terry Casey hit upon the idea of
using focus groups to determine how the money might be spent. Different types
of library people would appreciate OPLIN asking for their input. OPLIN should
ask people what they want.
Other points expressed included that it does not
seem right to spend more money on database, given the lackluster usage
statistics, the fact that with the OSC/OIT merger, OPLIN’s circuit prices
should go down (not up), most library staff are not aware of new technologies
affecting libraries, etc. There are too many variables.
Gayle Patton suggested that OPLIN is in a status quo
situation right now, and it is time to re-energize things. If we had good
ideas from the library community, we could start some new things and get people
back in touch with OPLIN.
There was a general discussion about OPLIN as a
“think tank” to move the profession. There was also general talk about focus
groups. Stephen Hedges plans to talk to Wayne Piper about this, and at the
next Board meeting will have more plans to share with the Board.
7.e.iii. Database MARC records
Stephen Hedges reported that OPLIN recently
installed Koha, so we could load MARC records for databases into a catalog and
see how they look (instead of asking a public library to test them for us).
Karl Jendretzky did a demonstration of how a MARC
record for a database would look in a library catalog.
Stephen talked about the zip code request in our
current IP authentication. He wants to remove it, and just keep city
statistics from incoming IP addresses. Zip codes are only used as statistics
for libraries that want to know them, and OPLIN staff would like to get rid of
that last authentication hurdle.
7.e.iv. Database “on the spot” training
Stephen Hedges reported that Jay Burton (State
Library), who has done extensive training for how to use OPLIN databases, has
been using CamStudio to film short “how to” videos, and is interested in
developing these further. CamStudio is an open source application, and Karl
quickly demonstrated how it works. links to these videos could be placed in the
listing of databases on our web page.
7.f. Other business
7.f.i. OPLIN Service Mark renewal
Stephen Hedges noted that the name “OPLIN” is a
registered service mark. It costs us $500 every ten years and the ten years is
up for renewal . A law firm in town has handled the registration before and
occasionally sends us correspondence about it. Joel Husenits and Stephen
looked into this matter and feel that OPLIN has probably established the mark
by usage. Stephen also talked to the Attorney General’s office about it and
they are interested in handling any possible renewal for us and registering
with the State at a reduced cost.
As for the OPLIN logo, the old one expires next
year. Should we register the new one? The prices would be the same as above.
The general consensus was to have the Ohio AG’s
office handle it.
8. OPLIN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S REPORT -- Stephen Hedges
8.a. E-rate activity
8.a.i. Audit exit findings #1, #2, #3
Stephen Hedges reviewed the E-rate audit findings
from KPMG. The only money item found is small enough that it will only be
mentioned in the management letter. The audit covered the first year Don Nuss
handled the E-rate paperwork, and it was a lot better than it had been prior to
that.
8.b. Office activities
Stephen Hedges talked about the recent Code4Lib
Conference, where he did a “lightning talk” about The OPLIN 4cast.
Stephen also talked about recent OWL meetings with
the LCO partners. Both Stephen and Joel Husenits have run the general OWL plan
by LCO folks.
8.c. Databases and Network REPORTS
8.c.i. Database usage
Stephen Hedges noted that searches are above last
year’s number, and document retrievals are starting to pull ahead also.
8.c.ii. Support Center -- (February and
March, and praises)
Stephen Hedges noted that diagnostic disconnections
are high right now.
He also talked about the Biannual Report to the
Leadership, which he uses as an opportunity to inform the legislators about
library activities.
9. CHAIR'S REPORT
There was no report.
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (2)
The Chair called for public participation, and there
was none.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Terry Casey motioned to adjourn the meeting at
3:34 p.m.
February 9, 2007 Minutes
February 9, 2007 Minutes hedgesstOHIO PUBLIC LIBRARY INFORMATION NETWORK (OPLIN)
ONE-HUNDREDTH REGULAR MEETING of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Minutes – February 9, 2007
1. WELCOME & CALL TO ORDER
The one-hundredth meeting of the Ohio Public Library Information
Network (OPLIN) Board of Trustees was called to order at 10:05 a.m. on
Friday, February 9, 2007 by Board Chair Donna Perdzock at the State
Library of Ohio in Columbus, Ohio.
Present were Board members: Jim Kenzig, Terry Casey, Bob Richmond,
Donna Perdzock, Anne Hinton, Mary Pat Essman, Gayle Patton, Sandi
Thompson, and Richard Murdock.
Also present were: Stephen Hedges (OPLIN), Joel Husenits (OPLIN), Karl
Jendretzky (OPLIN), Diane Fink (State Library), and Carol Verny
(OHIONET).
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (1)
The Chair called for public participation, and there was none.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Terry Casey motioned to approve the agenda, Richard Murdock
seconded. All aye.
4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Mary Pat Essman motioned to approve the minutes from the December 8,
2006 Board meeting, Gayle Patton seconded. All aye.
5. FINANCE REPORT
Diane Fink gave a detailed finance report.
Report A covered budget and expenditures for fiscal years (FY) 2006 and
2007. FY2006 is technically completed. OPLIN spent a little
over $2000 on the new logos, but had some savings in the area of
salaries, with both Don Nuss and Don Yarman recently
departing. All monies have been paid to Wright State for
OPLIN’s share of the LCO databases. One payment is
left for Rotunda. Some unused spending authority for paid-for
databases remains. Stephen Hedges noted that he is still waiting on a
few libraries regarding filtering grants. Within the next month, all
monies should be paid out to the public libraries that were awarded the
grants. The goal is always to obligate all general revenue
funds by the end of the fiscal year.
Report B covered non-General Revenue Fund (GRF) cash balance for FY
2006 and 2007. Diane explained that one particular database vendor
offered a lower price to a public library than the one they paid
through OPLIN as part of a group contract. A refund was
requested from the vendor and that money was given to the library
involved.
Report C covered Gates Staying Connected Grant funds, which started in
FY 2004. All monies have now been obligated for this Grant,
which runs through FY 2007. OPLIN purchased videoconferencing
equipment for training purposes, which is available to the public
libraries. Once the final invoice arrives, that will conclude
the grant.
Report D covered revenue and cash balance for FY 2006-2007, estimating
receipts and disbursements. This cash balance will carry over
from year to year in Fund 4S4 monies.
Report E tracked budget requests and projections for FY 2007 through FY
2009, and showed what the State Library submitted for OPLIN for the FY
2008-09 budgets. Recommendations will come out when the new
Governor presents his State of the State Address, around March 15.
Diane noted that on January 19, OBM implemented a “temporary
hiring control process” (a hiring freeze) and identified any
positions that were essential. Otherwise, open state
positions will not be filled until after March 31. On the
same day the memo came out, OPLIN was doing final interviews for the
Technology Project Manager vacancy. A memo was prepared
stating the urgency of filling that position which had been vacant
since September. The State Library’s budget analyst
said to go ahead and send it to the Governor’s office, so a
personnel action to put Karl Jendretzky into Don Nuss’ old
position is in the Governor’s office, with a memo from the
State Librarian about the importance of filling the position.
Both OPLIN and the State Library have vacant positions that will have
to wait until after March 31 to fill.
Diane also reported that the state is converting to a new human
resources and financial system called OAKS. OAKS was
implemented in January, and the state has already issued three
paychecks out of the system. They are still working a few
things out, but as a whole it is working well. The next major
piece of the project is financials, which will affect OBM a
lot. This piece is slated to roll out July 1, 2007.
The next budget for FY 2010-2011 will be in OAKS, and work will begin
on that in the summer of 2008.
Terry Casey motioned to approve the finance report, Jim Kenzig
seconded. All aye.
6. OLD BUSINESS
a. Approve policy
changes (to align with new Goals
& Objectives)
Stephen Hedges introduced the changes he was proposing for the four
policies.
i. Provision of
Network Services by OPLIN to Public Libraries
The first policy (item 6.a.i) is the most important.
Stephen’s proposed version replaced various language items
that were out-of-date (“broadband” instead of
“T1” for example), and made minor changes to
OPLIN’s mission summation, etc.
ii. Extending
OPLIN to Other Public Institutions
The second policy proposal (item 6.a.ii) has similar changes.
iii. Public
Libraries that Withdraw from OPLIN Network Services
The third one (item 6.a.iii) quoted the original (now outdated) mission
statement, so Stephen took that out and summarized the new one instead.
iv. Acceptable
Public Library Staff & Trustee Use of OPLIN
The fourth one (item 6.a.iv) he simply took out the number
“250.”
These proposed changes would be in alignment with the new
“Mission, Goals, and Objectives” document, which
was recently approved by the Board.
Gayle Patton motioned to approve the policy changes as presented, Sandi
Thompson seconded. All aye.
1. NEW BUSINESS
a. New
Board member
Stephen Hedges reported that he was contacted by Clyde Scoles, who felt
that he could not devote as much time to the OPLIN Board as he should
and has resigned. In the interests of keeping the Board as
diversified as possible, both Stephen and Donna Perdzock think we
should look for a technology person and an administrative person as
candidates, preferably someone from a metro library.
Sandi Thompson thinks we should look for several names before we make a
selection. Everyone seems to think a metro library person
would be appropriate.
There was a general discussion about potential candidates, followed by
a general agreement to hold off until the next meeting, and to look for
potential candidates in the meantime. It was noted that there
would be several departing Board members in the near future.
b. Accept
resignation
of Don Yarman
Stephen Hedges read Don Yarman’s letter of
resignation. Don is now the Assistant Director of the
Delaware County District Library, but he remained on the search
committee for the Technology Project Manager position.
In answer to Board questions, Stephen feels that the pay range was not
a factor in Don’s decision to leave, and that the position is
competitively paid.
Donna Perdzock thanked Don Yarman, on behalf of the OPLIN Board, for
his contribution to OPLIN and its success during his time here.
2. OPLIN EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR'S REPORT -- Stephen Hedges
a. Strategic plan
activities
Stephen Hedges highlighted some of the noteworthy OPLIN activities that
fit into the new strategic plan. Staff have been researching
potential new Internet connections for the public libraries.
There are 17 public libraries under the new formula that qualify for
more bandwidth. In regard to the CLEVNET libraries, Cleveland
Public Library will probably be putting in equipment to handle fiber
connections at their hub, but not until later this year. They
want to bring all of their branches onto the fiber. As a
temporary measure, T1 lines will be added to the qualifying libraries,
which can be done under the SOMACS contract. When the fiber
is ready to go, OPLIN can turn off the T1s without any penalty.
Stephen noted that staff have also started discussions with
AT&T about Ethernet connections in the Cincinnati
area. This would cross a LATA into Cincinnati Bell
territory. AT&T has to have an agreement with
Cincinnati Bell in order to place a fiber hub that connects with the
OPLIN hub in Columbus in that area, which is more of a legal discussion
than a technical one. OPLIN will use T1s if it is going to
take a long time to install fiber. Columbus Metro is in the
works, but they might have to upgrade their infrastructure before they
can install the line.
The new connections will be part of the new state contract –
when the “Son of SOMACS” is signed, it will
encompass Ethernet with new T1s in one contract. Right now,
Ethernet is kind of a sub-contract.
Donna Perdzock noted that OPLIN’s new formula was
well-received at the last ETM meeting.
Stephen Hedges introduced Karl Jendretzky to the Board. Karl
is going to be Don Nuss’ replacement as soon as OPLIN gets
the official approval from the Governor’s office.
Karl has been setting up the new e-mail server.
Stephen reported on recent discussions with OIT about their billing for
Internet access. Dan Orr (OIT) and Dan Farslow (E-Tech)
looked at the OIT bill to see what they could change in order to make
it more E-ratable. OIT is going to come back with a revised
bill.
Karl Jendretzky has been developing new reports to help track bandwidth
usage for each public library on the OPLIN network, and also working on
mirroring OPLIN network servers at the SOCC and the OPLIN
office. AT&T has to flip the switch to turn this on.
Karl is installing Evergreen software on a test server; Georgia is
using it for their PINES project. Staff will examine and test
it. A lot of public libraries are interested in it, and it
has been built to handle a consortium of libraries of all sizes.
Stephen recently spoke with the Plinkit collaborative project at Jo
Budler’s recommendation. As part of this project,
Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and some Illinois libraries are using
Plone (an open source content management system) to construct generic
web pages for libraries. Staff have been looking into it, and
the fee is $25,000 a year to be part of the collaborative.
That would not save OPLIN much; Jo Budler is going to investigate it
further.
b. New logo(s)
Stephen Hedges noted that the new OPLIN logos are presented on the
front and back of the printed agenda for this meeting. Joel
Husenits worked with the same graphic designer who did the State
Library logo about six months ago. The designer came up with
a couple of dozen different design ideas, and Joel did the final work
on them.
Stephen Hedges noted that these logos will not be used as much in front
of the public as in the front of the library community. Terry
Casey was unsure that these logos adequately communicate what OPLIN
does.
c. E-rate
activity
Stephen Hedges explained current E-rate activities.
Yesterday, Stephen decided he can E-rate all of OPLIN’s OIT
bill instead of just one small part, so he re-filed the application and
significantly increased the refund requested from E-rate. He
will cancel the first application made to E-rate and keep the second.
Stephen also explained what we have applied for, and that OPLIN is
looking at a total of about $1.3 million in requested
discounts. We don’t expect to see all of that; we
will be transitioning circuits throughout the year, and that will
change the specifics.
Stephen reported that OPLIN and OIT have been talking about canceling
all of the diagnostic lines to libraries. OIT engineers
indicated they are not necessary and will be disconnected. Instead of
fixing the router by phone, OIT will dispatch someone to the
building. Even if OIT is dispatching someone, OPLIN will save
money over time.
Stephen went over OIT’s sequence of events when they are
diagnosing a problem. OIT has given permission to disconnect
the modems though disposition has not been determined.
Stephen reported that OPLIN is being audited for E-rate year
2004. The auditors came to the office on Monday. They are
from KPMG, which is under contract with the FCC to do 150 audits this
year, and OPLIN is one of those. The E-rate auditors have
pointed out that paper work can be filed when transitioning from T1s to
fiber. No major findings from the auditors are
expected. They are just looking at the funding request for
discounts on the T1s.
The appeal for 2005 is still percolating.
d. Library
Technology
Project Manager search
Stephen Hedges reported that the search committee last met on January
19th, and thanked both Gayle Patton and Jim Kenzig for serving on that
committee. After the second round of interviews, Karl
Jendretzky was promoted from the OPLIN Support Center to the Library
Technology Project Manager position. The request was
submitted to OBM as a promotion, and it was sent to the
Governor’s office as an unclassified position.
Karl’s position may not be replaced in the OPLIN Support
Center, as his position was funded by E-rate, rather than general
revenue funds.
The Library Services Manager position cannot be addressed until after
March 31.
The next item covered on the agenda was Item 8.h.
e. RFQ status
From Item 8.h.
Stephen Hedges reported that the RFQ process is on hold at this
point. Stephen put out a second draft of the
committee’s recommendations on how to proceed.
Stephen has been hearing from Governor Strickland’s
people. They are open to the idea of having the private
sector manage the last mile segment of the network, instead of the
government. That is the service the RFQ is requesting.
f. Circuit upgrades
Stephen Hedges showed a list of circuit upgrade requests, and where we
are in the process. He went over some of the particular
cases, and how we discovered some billing errors in the process.
g. Caching
(Stratacache)
Stephen Hedges related that OPLIN never got the caching devices to work
correctly. They may be given to one of the public libraries that
generate a lot of traffic. Cleveland Public Library is
interested in having them; they worked well when tested in Cincinnati.
On to Item 8.i.
h. Database
previews
This followed Item 8.d.
Stephen reported that all of the database vendors are currently
contacting him about setting up the spring database previews.
Stephen met with Carol Verny and Christine Morris (OHIONET) to discuss
the annual database preview period and OHIONET’s handling the
paid-for databases. OPLIN's involvement with this service
originated during the years when OPLIN was LLGSF-funded.
Stephen has developed a plan to partner with OHIONET for handling
paid-for databases. Public libraries do not have to be
OHIONET members to buy databases though them, and OHIONET would handle
all negotiations, contracts, billing, etc. OPLIN can handle
the technical support for databases.
Stephen suggested the following plan:
- public libraries
get a core set of databases free from OPLIN; - if they want more
than that, they can buy them from OHIONET; - if technical
assistance is needed, call the OPLIN Support Center.
This plan should not increase traffic in the OPLIN Support
Center appreciably, but we will need information from OHIONET in order
to solve problems with some databases.
The Board discussed the question: do we need a replacement Library
Services Manager if we go down this path? Negotiating
contracts for OPLIN statewide databases is a much simpler process.
Terry Casey expressed concern that this would take some of the image
away about OPLIN’s purpose. If there is a better
way to handle the paid-for databases, then great, but you cannot keep
shrinking what OPLIN does.
Donna Perdzock wondered if there might be a way to realign positions;
save some money on one job and put it into something
different. Perhaps redefine what “Library Services
Manager” means.
There was a general discussion about the evolution of OPLIN’s
involvement in databases.
Back to Item 8.e.
i. Office
activities
Stephen Hedges reviewed a list of recent office activities.
The State Library Board has hired a new CIO, who starts February
20. In mid-December, a new marketing person started work at
the State Library, and revised their logo a little.
Stephen discussed some of the meetings he has been to
recently. On February 2, there was a meeting at the State
Library for Ohio Broadband (ONE Ohio), discussing the future of the
state network.
j. Databases and
Network REPORTS
i. Database usage
Stephen Hedges noted that database activity was down in December, which
follows the usual trend. Other traffic is mixed versus the
previous year.
ii. Support
Center --
(December & January)
Stephen discussed recent activity in the Support Center.
E-mail is a big part of it, as usual.
Terry Casey asked Stephen Hedges about OPLIN, OLC, and the State
Library, and what the plans are for when the state budget comes out; is
there any organized plan for reacting to it. Stephen said he
has not had much contact with Lynda Murray (OLC) about the
budget. The State Library submitted two budgets, one flat and
one with a 3% increase that had to be tagged to a new
program. The media seems to be suggesting that the budget
crunch is bad and that we will not see that extra 3%, but there is no
talk of cutting anything. Diane Fink agreed with Stephen, and
suggested that we will probably see flat funding. Diane also
reported that the State Library’s capital request from the
fall of 2005 was not funded.
The State Library got a request from OBM this week to explain how they
were addressing the Strickland vision. Their response
mentioned that OPLIN enables public libraries to be community computer
centers, and this message seems to resonate with the Strickland
administration. When we recently sent letters to the public
libraries about filtering, three legislators called to ask about our
filtering assistance grants to public libraries, etc.
Terry Casey noted that there has been a lot of legislator
turnover. Public libraries may have contributed a lot towards
the filtering discussion; that there is no such thing as a statewide
standard for decency, etc. But he thinks libraries need to be
better prepared. The cycle is shortened this year for the
state budget, and the state has even less dollars than they have had.
Stephen noted that 150 out of 250 libraries filter, including some
major libraries. Technically, a statewide filter is possible,
and it is even technically possible to set individual standards for
each library. However, CIPA standards say that adults have to
be able to turn the filter off, and that is the issue. How do
you enable that when you have a central filter?
Terry Casey feels that some legislators will want to do something in
this area. Jim Kenzig noted that if you filter on a state
level, OPLIN will probably lose the libraries that do not want to do
it. Terry thinks some legislators will want state funding to
be tied to filtering to some extent.
9. CHAIR'S REPORT
Donna Perdzock reminded Board members to fill out and submit their
ethics forms.
Donna thanked Stephen Hedges and the OPLIN staff for picking up the
slack with the open positions.
10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (2)
The Chair called for public participation, and there was none.
11. ADJOURNMENT
Terry Casey motioned to adjourn the meeting at 12:08 p.m.