Minutes

Present: Jonas Barciauskas, Robert Evensen, Eileen Hardy, Marilyn McSweeney, Barbara Preece, Jay Schafer, Laura Walters (recorder)

1. The task force approved the cost savings report prepared by the BLC office with the suggestion that a cost savings column be added.
   
   
2. E-Resources Web Site-the Williams College systems librarian, Walter Komorowski, has agreed to work on the web site. Laura and Jonas will meet with him and Barbara to design the site.
   
   
3. We received proposals from two vendors. We discussed the 2 central buying fund proposals that we received.
   
   
4. Decision-making model for central buying fund-the task force began to discuss a possible decision-making model. It was decided that rather than have the current task force come up with a model, we would make the following recommendation to the BLC Board: Given acceptance of the central buying fund idea, a task force be formed that to come up with a decision-making model for central purchases. This model should include:
   
   a. selection criteria
   b. timetable for selection of titles
   c. mechanism for feedback from the larger e-resources contacts list
   
   

   The current task force will include this recommendation along with the recommendation and rationale for a central buying fund.

5. Buying Club-the task force also recommends that the BLC continue as a "buying club." We recommend that all BLC members become NERL affiliates and that NERL be used whenever possible, with the BLC as a back up when NERL is not an option. Rationale: we believe that the BLC can benefit from the ability to leverage the momentum of NERL partnerships. There is currently significant overlap between NERL and BLC membership. NERL's buying power provides a monetary advantage to BLC members when purchasing electronic resources. By taking advantage of NERL, the BLC office will have more time to work on the other important services that the BLC offers.
   
   
6. Model for Buying Club:

1. Titles for consideration should come from the e-resources contacts list and/or the BLC office.
   
2. The office sends out all suggestions for a trial to the e-resources contacts list to gauge interest. Members have one week to respond to the e-response list to note interest in the trial.
   
3. If significant interest is found, the office sets up a month-long trial. Information on this is sent to the e-resources contacts list.
   
4. Members must respond to the e-response list by 2 weeks after the end of the trial to note interest.
   
5. The office gathers preliminary pricing information that is shared with the e-resources contacts list. Final commitment must be made to the e-response list 2 weeks after pricing is received.
   
6. The office negotiates the license and sends final license for comments to the e-resources list. Membes have 1 week to comment.
   
7. The office sends the license, sign-off sheet and invoice to appropriate contacts.
   
8. The office maintains the e-resources web site with all product information.
   
9. The office sends a monthly summary of the status of titles being considered to the e-resources contacts list.

1. Pricing models--before meeting with the publisher reps, we discussed possible pricing models for a shared BLC purchase. Barbara noted that PALSI, CIC, WILA, and CRL might provide models. The BLC could levy an assessment for shared purchases as part of dues. Robert said this was done in the past with large microfilm sets. We could also explore if we want to recommend the use of the BLC reserves for the first year.

2. Three vendors met with the group and discussed possible consortial options. Proposals are due by the vendors by May 1, 2002

4. The next meeting is April 18th, the day our next report is due to the Board. Barbara said the report could be handed in April 19th if necessary. Barbara is unable to attend the next board meeting.

a. Convener--Robert  
b. Scribe--Laura
c. No need for a facilitator or leader, as we will all play an equal part.

a. All share equally in running of the group.  
b. Leave time at end of meeting for summing up and writing of action items.

a. Increase effectiveness in providing electronic resources in a timely manner.
b. Determine best practices in providing this service.
c. Explore inclusion of other libraries or consortia.

a. Effectiveness has several measures: cost savings; increased number of resources and access; and staff savings. The CCC has never really looked at whether buying resources through the BLC is effective using any of these measures. Jonas pointed out that NERL has recently prepared a Savings Report that measures cost savings and increased access.

b. Staff savings--we asked if using the BLC to negotiate contracts actually saves staff time. So far, the procedural models we have used still entail a great deal of institutional staff time. Is there a way to improve this? One option is to follow the NERL model and to have a full-time staff member at the BLC devoted only to licensing electronic resources. This person could negotiate the contracts, communicate with members, and maintain a web site such as the NERL site that outlines all licensing information (including the monthly list of products).

a. Several models were discussed, including OhioLink. We would like to explore this model further: the BLC would have a central buying fund to which all members contribute. All members would then have access to all the products purchased from this fund. This model might particularly lend itself to the full-text primary source databases that are now becoming available. We could approach vendors and suggest this new model to them.  

a. NERL appears to be very effective. Should we explore the possibility of having the BLC join NERL as a consortium? This would allow individual libraries that have interest in a certain product to get this product through NERL. This would be in addition to the OhioLink model, in which all the BLC libraries would have access to the licensed product. This model could work in conjunction with the OhioLink model, depending on the resource.  

b. We discussed briefly including other consortia, but decided that we preferred to first work out models and procedures for the BLC before even considering expanding to other consortia. We will, however, continue to discuss NELINET and MBLC.