The one hundred eighteenth
meeting of the Ohio Public Library
Information Network (OPLIN) Board of Trustees was called to order at
10:00 a.m. on Friday, February 12, 2010 by Board Chair Karl
Colón at the State Library of Ohio in Columbus, Ohio.

Present were Board members:
Don Barlow, Gary Branson, Jason Buydos, Ben Chinni, Karl
Colón, Jim Kenzig, Jamie Mason, Bonnie Mathies, Gayle Patton, Sandi
Plymire, and Jeff Wale.

Also present were: Stephen
Hedges, Laura Solomon and Karl Jendretzky (OPLIN); Diane
Fink (State Library); and Doug Evans (Ohio
Library Council).


The Chair called for public participation and there was none.


Gayle Patton motioned to
approve the agenda as presented; Don Barlow seconded. All aye.

of December 11 Meeting

Don Barlow motioned to
approve the minutes of the December 11 meeting; Jason Buydos
seconded. All aye.


Diane Fink presented the Financial Reports as of January 31,
2010. Report A showed
budget and expenditures for Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, which are
unchanged from the previous meeting since those fiscal years are
Report B
budget and expenditures for the current Fiscal Year (2010); and Report
C showed the
revenue and cash balances for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010.

Report B:
Diane noted the two open encumbrances, one for the fourth quarter OPLIN
rent, and one for the ongoing contract for Explore Ohio website content
management. She also noted that all budgeted encumbrances for Ohio Web
Library databases have now been paid. Finally, she pointed out that the
final filtering grant, which appears as an available balance in the
report, was actually being transferred to the library's account today,
completing the FY 2010 filtering grant payments.

Report C:
Diane reported
that the cash balance in Fund 4S4 was about $1.5 million at the end of
FY 2009. In FY 2010, OPLIN received one transfer of $3,702,150 million
from the Public Library Fund. An additional $7,645 was received from
libraries for web services, as well as $562,467 for E-rate
reimbursements. As of January 31, the cash balance stands at

Diane reported
that the Office of Budget and Management (OBM) is expected to release
general guidance for the FY 2012-2013 biennial operating budget within
the next few months, possibly in time for discussion at the OPLIN Board
retreat in April. Budget submissions will probably be due in September
2010. If the majority party of either the House or the Senate changes
after the November elections, the ensuing budget process in the
legislature will be delayed by about a month.

also announced that following Jo Budler's departure to take the Kansas
State Librarian position, Missy Lodge, currently Head of Library
Programs and Development, will serve as Interim State Librarian.

Wale asked if the decline in tax revenues going into the Public Library
Fund would have an impact on the OPLIN budget. Diane replied that it
would not, since OPLIN received its allotment from the Public Library
Fund in a single transfer at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Gayle Patton motioned to
accept the Financial Reports; Jamie Mason seconded. All aye.


6.1. Request for Internet
connection from Central Library Consortium

Colón reminded the Board that this issue had been tabled at the last
meeting to allow an ad hoc committee to study the issue. Stephen Hedges
told the Board that he would start the discussion by reporting on the
information found during the investigation of the issue, and then the
ad hoc committee would present their recommendations.

Stephen referred the Board again to the letter received from
Carol Roddy,
Director of the Central Library Consortium (CLC), requesting that OPLIN
continue to pay for management fees associated with CLC's
state-contracted Internet connection, billed by the Ohio Office of
Information Technology (OIT), as well as take over payments for the
circuit itself, billed by AT&T. As the ad hoc committee began
considering this request, they asked Stephen to provide the history
of the relationship between OPLIN and CLC.

Stephen provided the Board with a document summarizing that
history, and then verbally discussed the major elements of that
history. From the beginning of OPLIN in 1995, the budget language
defining OPLIN gave the Board complete authority to certify
participants in the network. Documents from the early OPLIN years
clearly establish that the OPLIN Board envisioned providing an Internet
connection to one location in each public library system, usually the
main library, although from the beginning the State Library received
connections at two locations and regional library systems received
connections as well. Also from the beginning, there was an OPLIN T1
connection in Lithopolis, which was variously identified as connecting
to either CLC or Wagnalls Memorial Library.

Most of the decisions the Board made about the connections
provided to Ohio library entities were based on financial
considerations: could OPLIN afford the connection? That was the case in
August 2002, when CLC requested that OPLIN pay OIT management fees on a
second T1 line they had installed. The audio recording of this meeting
contains discussion about OPLIN's practice of paying management fees
for additional T1 circuits that large libraries were then buying, which
was: the library paid for the additional circuit costs, but OPLIN paid
management fees on all the circuits going to the library. The Board
voted to do the same for CLC, but this was recorded in the minutes as
approval that "OPLIN pay for the circuit costs for CLC."

In 2006 CLC replaced their double-T1 connection with a 10
Mbps Ethernet connection. At the time, OPLIN practice in such
situations—when a library shifted completely away from an
OPLIN-provided connection—was
to reimburse the library in some way for an amount similar to what
OPLIN would have been paying for a connection to the library. In the
case of CLC, OPLIN agreed to pay OIT management and bandwidth charges
on the Ethernet circuit while CLC paid the actual circuit charge.
Wagnalls Memorial Library continued to use one of the old T1 lines, and
OPLIN began paying for this connection in 2007 when Wagnalls began
receiving state funding. Stephen admitted that he had forgotten about
this arrangement with CLC and had asked CLC to begin paying OIT charges
on their Ethernet circuit after noticing those charges on the OPLIN
bill from OIT several months ago, which then prompted CLC's request to
the Board for payment of all their connection charges.

course of doing research, Stephen called the ad hoc committee's
attention to the fact that the OPLIN Board no longer has the authority
to certify OPLIN participants; possible participants are now defined by
the Ohio Revised Code (3375.64). This language would seem to exclude
CLC from OPLIN. With the support of the Ohio Library Council, Stephen
requested information from Jon Iten, legal counsel to OLC and one of
the major drafters of the Revised Code language on OPLIN, about how to
interpret this language. Mr. Iten replied that it was never the intent
to exclude any current network participant, but then also pointed out
that CLC is not a separate legal entity, but a group of libraries
operating together, with an Administering Library entering into
contracts with the other libraries for specific services. In the case
of the CLC automation project—the primary user of the Ethernet
connection to the CLC office—the Administering Library is Grandview
Heights Public Library, which is unquestionably an OPLIN participant.

6.1.1. Recommendation

While OPLIN participants are defined by the Revised Code, the
of the services provided to participants remains under the authority of
the OPLIN Board. The ad hoc committee—Jeff Wale, Jason Buydos, and
Gayle Patton—noted
that Mr. Iten's memo clarified for them that the question before them
was really the nature of the services OPLIN would provide to Grandview
Heights Public Library. Jeff pointed out that the committee asked
Stephen to keep CLC informed of developments as information was
collected, so CLC has seen both the background memo and Jon Iten's
memo. Karl
Colón remarked that, despite the change in the Board's authority and
the diverse ways the Board had used its previous authority to approve
Internet connections to library entities, the original intent of
providing each library with one connection has been consistent
throughout OPLIN's history. Karl also noted that the current OPLIN
"Policy on the Provision of Network Services" had not been revised
since the Ohio Revised Code language took effect.

6.1.2. Amend
policy on "Network Services"

On behalf of the ad hoc committee, Jeff Wale presented a
proposed revision of the "Policy
on the Provision of Network Services" with language that specified one
connection to one location per library with the exception of
connections for three State Library of Ohio locations (State Library,
SEO Library Center, and OPLIN office). Jamie Mason asked for
clarification of the difference between the SEO Library Center and CLC.
Various members of the committee responded that "CLC" is actually a
separate location of Grandview Heights Public Library, as viewed by
OPLIN, and SEO Library Center is a service outlet of the State Library
of Ohio. The committee's recommendation is that State Library sites be
treated differently from public libraries. There was also a question as
to whether any public libraries currently have two separate
connections. Jason Buydos said there was initially some confusion about
Cleveland Public Library and CLEVNET, but that in fact CLEVNET shares
Cleveland Public Library's single connection; there are no libraries
with two connections.

Stephen Hedges noted that since the committee's development
of the proposed language, he and Karl Jendretzky had discussed the
issue of the seventeen libraries with multiple T1 lines. While these
multiple lines function as a single connection, some libraries might
misinterpret the "one connection" wording of the policy to mean that
multiple T1 lines would no longer be provided to libraries. After some
discussion, the wording was changed to authorize one connection, or
aggregated circuits acting as one connection.

Jason Buydos motioned to
amend the Policy on Provision of Network Services as proposed; Jeff
Wale seconded.

Roll call: Don
Barlow, aye; Gary Branson, aye; Jason Buydos, aye; Ben Chinni, aye; Jim
Kenzig, aye; Jamie Mason, aye; Bonnie Mathies, aye; Gayle Patton, aye;
Plymire, aye; Jeff Wale, aye; and Karl
Colón, aye.

6.1.3. Response
to CLC

Board now turned to consideration of the specific request from the CLC
office. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee was that the request
be denied, in accordance with the revised Network Services policy,
since the request was in effect for two connections to two Grandview
Heights Public Library locations. It was noted, however, that paying
the OIT management costs for the CLC connection would place a financial
burden on the CLC libraries for which they had not budgeted. Therefore
the committee also recommended that OPLIN continue to pay OIT
management costs for the CLC connection through the end of OPLIN's
fiscal year on June 30, 2010. Stephen reported that this cost would be
about $250 per month.

Buydos motioned to reject the request from CLC, but continue to pay
their OIT management costs through June 30, 2010; Gayle Patton
seconded. All aye.

The Board asked Stephen to formally convey this response as
soon as possible to Carol Roddy, CLC Executive Director.

Colón expressed his thanks to Stephen and the ad hoc committee for
their extensive work on this issue.


Approve Capital Budget request

Stephen Hedges reported that he and Diane had prepared two
capital budget requests from OPLIN for FY2011-2012, which must be
submitted to the
Office of Budget and Management (OBM) by February 26.

The first request
completes the router replacement project, for which OPLIN received
capital budget funds for FY2009-2010. At the time OPLIN made the
previous request, the plan was to match the capital budget request
($200,000) with OPLIN funds, but subsequent state budget cuts forced
OPLIN to reallocate those match funds to pay for operational expenses.
As a result, OPLIN has only purchased a new core router and 71 library
site routers to replace routers that reached industry end-of-life in
June 2008. This proposed second request for funds to replace 154 more
routers will be for more than $200,000, though the final budget is
still being discussed with representatives from OIT. Gayle Patton asked
if the five spare routers included in the proposal were enough; Karl
Jendretzky replied that all the new routers would be covered by a
replacement warranty, so spare routers would not be needed for extended
periods of time.

Stephen also noted that an E-rate Priority 2
application had been filed to discount the cost of some of the routers,
which would be placed in "high-discount" libraries located in school
districts with a large percentage of students receiving free or
reduced-cost lunches. Priority 2 applications for libraries qualifying
for less than an 80% discount are usually not funded by E-rate. Karl
further noted that this would be the second replacement of OPLIN
routers in libraries.

second request would cover the cost of installing fiber-optic Ethernet
connections at 114 libraries which currently have single T1
connections. These installs are made possible by the new contract with
Time Warner Cable, which would allow OPLIN to buy 3 Mbps Ethernet
connections for a slightly lower monthly cost than the 1.5 Mbps T1
lines. Even though none of these libraries has yet qualified for a
circuit upgrade, this upgrade would save OPLIN money; however, the Time
Warner Cable contract also requires a payment of $1,500 for installing
a circuit, which OPLIN cannot afford. This capital budget request would
therefore pay for the installation fees at the 114 libraries, for a
total of $171,000.

OBM requires that agency capital budget
requests be prioritized, and we would designate the router replacement
request to be our top priority. Stephen also noted that the second
request might qualify for a federal Broadband Technology Opportunities
Program (BTOP) grant, but BTOP requires at least a 20% match from the
grantee. The timing of the capital budget and BTOP deadlines does not
allow OPLIN to apply to both funding sources and cancel one application
later, so Stephen recommends OPLIN pursue the capital budget funds
than the BTOP funds.

In response to a question, Diane Fink
reported that our capital budget request for FY2009-2010 was submitted
in January 2008 and we received the funds in August 2008. Stephen also
explained that biennial capital budgets alternate with biennial
operating budgets; the state is currently in the FY2010-2011 operating
budget. Diane noted that the State Library would not be
any capital budget requests other than the two OPLIN requests.

Bonnie Mathies
motioned to approve the capital budget requests; Jeff Wale
seconded. All aye.

Karl Colón reminded Stephen that Board members would be
willing to talk to legislators to explain the capital budget requests
if needed.


Stephen Hedges reported that OPLIN has received a rejection
letter from USDA Rural Utility Service regarding our application for
Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) stimulus funds to buy routers.
OPLIN had applied for funds simultaneously through the BIP and BTOP
processes, with a preference for BIP because matching funds were not
necessarily required. The rejection letter indicated that the lack of a
loan request in our application was the reason for the rejection, and
the application has now been passed along to BTOP evaluators. Stephen
noted that USDA has historically favored grant/loan combinations, and
that in the recently announced second round of funding they no longer
offer 100% grants. Stephen also speculated that the size of our request
may have been too small, since second round requests are expected to be
for no less than $500,000. As noted earlier, Stephen does not plan to
submit a second-round request from OPLIN, but has offered to assist the
State Library with their BTOP application. A brief general discussion
of the BTOP process ensued, particularly how libraries planned to
participate in the second round of funding.

Stephen then reported on House Bill 276, which is a bill
seeking to deregulate some aspects of the telecommunications industry.
The bill is complex and has garnered a lot of interest from lobbyists
and consumer advocates. The Ohio Consumers' Council (OCC) in particular
is concerned that the bill may be bad for consumers and is seeking ways
to amend the bill to provide some consumer benefits. OCC approached the
Ohio Library Council about the possibility of having telecommunications
companies establish a fund to support public computing in libraries,
and Lynda Murray and Stephen then worked together with OCC to draft a
proposed amendment that would channel up to $5 million per year from
telecommunications companies to OPLIN, which would then distribute the
funds to libraries and community computing centers in the form of
grants. Lynda and Stephen met with Rep. DeGeeter and Rep. Sayre to
present the amendment, but at this point in time it appears that the
amendment will not be added to the bill. If, however, things change and
the amendment is added, it is likely that the bill will be acted on
quickly, and Board members should be aware of it.

Stephen also reminded the Board of recently announced changes
in Ohio library leadership, particularly the departures of Tom
Jo Budler, and Meribah Mansfield from their current positions. Meribah
was very actively involved in the creation of OPLIN, and Stephen asked
the Board if they would like to do something special to commemorate her
service to OPLIN. Gayle Patton asked if OPLIN had done anything special
for Steve Wood, who was also active in the creation of OPLIN; Stephen
replied that he had attended Steve's retirement reception in Cleveland
Heights, but otherwise nothing special was done. Gayle suggested that
OPLIN create an online tribute to Meribah recognizing her service to
OPLIN and then announce its location on the OPLIN email lists. There
was general approval of this suggestion.

Stephen noted that prior to the Board meeting some members had
expressed an interest in hearing more about the current state of
OhioLINK, in light of Tom Sanville's departure from the Executive
Director position. The Board of Regents is actively working to
consolidate services, including some OhioLINK technology projects,
under OARnet direction. That transition process has had some problems,
leading to frustration among OhioLINK library directors. The OhioLINK
Board's governing authority has also been removed and now resides with
the Chancellor of the Board of Regents. This turmoil could affect OPLIN
because OhioLINK is one of the Libraries Connect Ohio (LCO) partners,
but Tom Sanville has assured LCO that OhioLINK's contributions to LCO
are not in any jeopardy. There was general Board discussion about the
possible impact of the technology transition on the Search Ohio
libraries that use OhioLINK technology for sharing materials.

and Network Reports


Laura Solomon noted that the Board is once again seeing raw
statistical data on database
usage rather than the usual chart because
EBSCO is still having a problem delivering statistics and is therefore
absent from the usage report. The previous problem receiving statistics
for OhioLINK-hosted resources has now been resolved. EBSCO is promising
to have their problem resolved by the end of the month.

8.1.2. Support
Center (December and January)

Karl Jendretzky reported that no unusual activity appears in
the Support Center reports for the past two months. He went on to
explain, however, that some interesting things have occurred which do
not appear in the reports. In the process of installing the new routers
at library sites, OPLIN discovered that many libraries using Innovative
Interfaces, Inc. software (III) had servers which were misconfigured
and caused the library catalog to fail when the new router was
installed. The old CISCO routers did not reveal the problem, but the
new Juniper routers do. This misconfiguration also explains why some
III servers were being used as spam relays and some Search Ohio users
reported problems connecting to the catalog. The Board encouraged Karl
to contact III libraries and alert them to this possible problem with
their server configuration. Karl also reported that OIT is now
satisfied that most configuration issues with the new routers have been
resolved and they will begin an aggressive schedule of
the routers.

Karl also noted that some of the Support Center tickets on his
reports initiate the first installations of Time Warner Cable
circuits in libraries, which has involved meetings and discussions with
TWC staff to familiarize them with our operations and vice versa.


Karl Colón reported that he had appointed Jeff Wale as the
at-large member of the Board Executive Committee; prior to becoming a
Board officer, Karl had been the at-large member.

Karl announced that the terms of four Board members
expire this June: himself, Gary Branson, Jeff Wale, and Jamie Mason
(completing Holly Carroll's term). All four members are eligible for
another term. Karl appointed Sandi Plymire and Ben Chinni to a
Nominating Committee to prepare a slate of continuing/replacement Board
candidates for the April Board retreat. Karl reminded the Board that
the retreat is scheduled to last until 3:00 pm, at a location yet to be

Karl asked the Board members to be sure they submit
their Financial Disclosure forms to the Ethics Commission before the
April 15 deadline.

Karl also asked Board members to pay close attention to House
Bill 400, which would eliminate the state income tax without any
proposed means of protecting the Public Library Fund from a revenue


Sandi Plymire motioned to
adjourn the meeting at 11:50 a.m.; Jason Buydos seconded.