National Licensing Forum

2005 National Licensing Forum

DRAFT

Minutes of the meeting held 12 October 2005

Present:

Jan Fullerton National Library (chair)
Joye Volker Art Libraries Society of Aust & NZ
Kathy Stapleton Aust Government Libraries Information Network
Karen Vitullo Aust Government Libraries Information Network
Roy Jordan Australian Law Librarians' Group
Susan Magnay Australian Library and Information Association
Richard Sayers Australian Library and Information Association
Lorene Furmage Australian School Library Association
Anne-Marie Schwirtlich Council of Australian State Libraries
Diane Costello Council of Australian University Librarians
Heather Gordon Council of Australian University Librarians
Thomas Girke CSIRO
Mary Gorman Department of Education, Science and Training
Chris Hayward Department of Health and Ageing
Alison Billing Government Libraries in NSW Network
Julie Rae Gulliver consortium
Lindsay Harris Health Libraries Australia
Jasmine Cameron National Library
Roxanne Missingham National Library
Julie Whiting National Library
Tony Boston National Library
Erica Ryan National Library
Kate Davis National Library
Fran Wilson National Library
Jerelynn Brown NSW.net
Teresa Brook PLAIN (SA)
Lucy Hill TAFE Libraries Australia
Judy Ryan TAFE Libraries Australia
Lynn Fletcher TAFE Libraries Australia
Sandra Henderson National Library (minutes)

 

Apologies: Robert Knight (PLA), John Arfield (WAGUL), Patricia Fox (DCITA).

Jan Fullerton opened the meeting, saying there had been good progress to date, with considerable consultation and feedback, and the aim of this meeting is to see if there is enough support within the library community to continue with this initiative.

Karen Vitullo, who chaired the Reference Group until recently, spoke about the work of the Group, and applauded the work which has been undertaken since the meeting last year. Jan Fullerton also expressed appreciation for the work of the group.  Karen said there had been a very good level of response to the issues paper, both in written responses and verbal comments to some members of the Reference Group.  Diane Costello mentioned the significant amount of work undertaken by Roxanne Missingham in maintaining the momentum of the work of the Group.

Lindsay Harris spoke about the issues raised in the responses.  The responses, and a summary of the main points raised, were provided to all delegates by email. 70 responses were included in the distributed papers, with 28 of these from the school library sector, 17 from government libraries, and 9 from public libraries.

One of the issues raised was the role of the proposed consortium in relation to existing consortia.  The meeting was clearly of the view that existing consortia will continue to have a role, because the national consortium would focus on a few key products, and specific sectors would always have needs which could not be met by a broad consortium except for products with more general appeal.

The diversity of libraries, even within sectors, meant there was concern about the ability of a consortium to deliver any products with general appeal, and for all views to be represented adequately on any management body for the consortium.  Other significant issues arising included the role of libraries, the importance of the "no-disadvantage" principle, and product selection principles. 

A paper on a possible funding model was tabled, and Roxanne thanked Julie Rae, Diane Costello, Lorene Furmage and Richard Sayers in particular for work on gathering data for the model.  In explaining the figures, Roxanne pointed out much more will need to be done before a useful model can be distributed further.  What did seem to be apparent is that affordable pricing should be achievable for at least some products, for even the smallest libraries.  A number of vendors had been approached for some indicative figures, and a considerable amount of data about library numbers and budgets gathered.  There will be much more work done in the next few months to produce a model which presents a clearer picture, is more easily understood, and which can be made available more widely.  What is evident is that the higher the take-up, the better the per-library price for the products will be.

Roy Jordan pointed out that the tabled model may unfairly place many small law libraries in a "large special libraries" bracket, because the resources they use are expensive, while the libraries would otherwise be regarded as "small special libraries".  It was pointed out that special libraries (including law) may be the hardest group to categorise, because of their diversity and the lack of sectoral data. 

Roxanne announced that the NLA will not pass on administrative costs to consortium members. She then spoke about a possible management model. While the issue of governance had been raised in a number of the responses, there had not been any significant feedback about a preferred model.  The Libraries Australia subscription model may be a useful one to work with.  LA has encouraged subscriptions by sectoral groups, including Viclink in Victoria, and the CPLA/MPLA in NSW.  These bodies pay an LA subscription, and then apportion costs among their members.  Where consortia exist, the NLA would prefer to work with them.  .

Karen Vitullo suggested that an FAQ, based on queries raised in the responses, would be useful.  The NLA will work on this (now available).

Lindsay mentioned that another concern in the responses was about the possible erosion of competition between vendors.  After some discussion, the general view was that products not licensed by a national consortium would still be purchased by those libraries that wanted them.  The experience in Victoria has been that non-Gulliver products are still being licensed by a number of libraries, and the number of products acquired by libraries is rising year-by-year.  Julie Whiting pointed out that there would need to be regular market-testing , so there would be opportunities for the consortium to change its product selection.

Another issue raised in a number of responses was whether access would be limited to library sites.  It was the general view that while access would be via library web pages, it must not be limited to on-site use of the resources.  For school students in particular, access from home was essential.  While authentication may be an issue for some libraries, Karen Vitullo indicated that ABS experience was that the availability of resources provided a tool for libraries to lobby their Councils or other bodies for the necessary IT support to implement authentication and other necessary infrastructure.  Julie Rae said it was important that vendors also become involved in discussions of such issues for consortial licences.

Governance was another issue of interest to respondents.  Of particular concern was representation of the interests of all groups.  Adequate representation needs to be balanced with the need to have a manageable committee.  In the first instance it may be more efficient to have an appointed committee, but it would also be important to ensure that communication channels were as open as possible.  Richard Sayers said ALIA may be able to provide a mechanism to ensure representation of special libraries, and Julie Rae said representation of public libraries could be through state groups where these had a significant role in coordination.  Jan Fullerton summed up saying that the governance model would be as light as possible, and it would be up to sectors to organise themselves to ensure representation.  There will be further discussion of the governance issue as the proposal moves forward.

There was discussion of the need for a Memorandum of Understanding between the consortium and its members.  It was suggested that the best approach would be to have a letter of intent rather than a more formal legal process, at least in the initial stages. 

The need for review of operation of the consortium was raised.  While this was thought to be important, it is something that can be left until the process has advanced a little further.

Product selection was an issue for several respondents.  The process needs to be quite transparent, and the very broad basis of this consortium means there will be a limited number of products which will be suitable.  It was pointed out that in such a consortium some level of disagreement is inevitable.  At the previous Forum it had been agreed that there were good reasons for an emphasis on Australian content.  The view now is that stating such a restriction on content is unnecessary.

The meeting moved on to comments from the various library sectors:

CASL
Anne-Marie Schwirtlich indicated that the general view is very positive.  CASL is delighted that the NLA is backing the proposal so strongly, and believes the initiative is very significant for libraries, their services, and the community more generally.

CAUL
Heather Gordon identified the CAUL response in the tabled document listing the feedback responses received.  CAUL supports the proposal in principle, but will continue to support their own consortium CEIRC, leaving individual institutions in CAUL to decide whether or not to participate in a national consortium should this be the outcome decided at the Oct forum.
CEIRC may manage the university response to the new consortium.  Most universities already have good deals for the sorts of products proposed for this consortium, so their involvement will depend on the costs and benefits.  CAUL recognises that the proposed consortium will have huge benefits for the public library and school library sectors.  There was some concern by CAUL, based on the feedback received in response to the issues paper, that some public and school library sector respondents commented that the universities should subside other sectors.  CAUL is clear that it would not subsidise other sectors.  Jan Fullerton stated that in past discussions it has always been very clear that each sector will pay its own way.  The only subsidy for the new initiative would be from the National Library, with its subsidy of the administrative costs.  The National Library is doing this because, while the Senate report on Libraries in the Online Environment indicated there is very strong need for such an initiative, the Government has made it clear they will not provide additional funding.

Schools
Lorene Furmage said there are over 9,000 schools, with huge variations in technological infrastructure, funding, and student needs. There is much support and excitement in the sector about this proposal.  Out-of-school hours access is essential for schools, as is adequate training and promotion.  The development of knowledge and confidence is vital for success.  Authentication will be an issue.
Fran Wilson spoke about the proposed virtual reference service directed toward schools.  The NLA is working on a proposal to go to DEST for support for such a service.  Australia-wide access to some electronic resources would tie-in very well with the reference service.
Mary Gorman indicated that DEST is addressing various areas of schools needs. Content creation and copyright management are major issues, and DEST is trying to work with state education departments and the non-government schools sectors in looking at these issues.

Public libraries
Victoria

Julie Rae said that Victorian public libraries fully support the proposal.  The existing consortium would move funds over to a national licence where possible.  The long-term sustainability of NLA's commitment was an issue.
NSW
Jerelynn Brown reported that most NSW public libraries support the proposal.  Issues of concern are sustainability, administration costs, infrastructure and training.  There are many libraries with very limited IT infrastructure, who find it difficult to build and maintain skills.  At present NSW public libraries all have access to three products, but per capita funding for public libraries lags behind other states.  Commitment from NSW public libraries will depend largely on the costs to the libraries.
South Australia
Teresa Brook from PLAIN said that in SA also, while there is general support in principle, the costs will be a determining factor.
WA
Julie Rae indicated that there was also support from WA public libraries, and the State Library was keen to support the public libraries in that state.

Special libraries
Health libraries

Lindsay Harris expressed support from Health Libraries Australia.  There may not be a high take-up in the first instance, because health libraries were usually interested in more targeted products, but a full text newspaper product would be popular.  This is a valuable initiative and as it evolves would offer a good framework for the licensing of more specific products.  Again, support will be cost-dependent.
CSIRO
Thomas Girke confirmed support from CSIRO.  CSIRO is an intense consumer of online information, although the initial products would probably be of only peripheral interest to its researchers.  Australian content is generally not of particular interest to CSIRO (its own publications are an exception).  He suggested expansion from health to more general STM might be more useful.  Tom indicated it was important to try to secure perpetual access rights when negotiating licences.  In terms of the funding model - placing CSIRO in the special libraries category is probably inappropriate, since CSIRO is more closely aligned with the university library sector than other special library groups.
ARLIS/ANZ
Joye Volker said ARLIS/ANZ would support the proposal, but would only ever be a small player.  Many art libraries cannot afford any electronic resources at present, and some could be more interested in a pay-per-use model.
Law
Roy Jordan said many law libraries are already heavy users of online information.  They are supportive of this proposal and would find products such as full text newspapers quite useful.  Again, most would want to see the financial detail, and there was some concern that although many are very small, they pay for some relatively highly-priced resources in the law area, skewing their place in the model.
Other special libraries
Richard Sayers believes there is wide support from other special libraries.  The consortium will be an opportunity to stimulate interest from the sector.  Susan Magnay added that ALIA supports and applauds the NLA's commitment and drive in trying to find a way to pursue the recommendation in the Senate report.  ALIA is committed to continuing to assist with communicating the
initiative to the library and information sector

TAFE libraries
Lynn Fletcher said she was pleased that there was confirmation that the new initiative would not threaten existing consortia. 
TAFE libraries' interests overlap with that of schools, with increasing VET in schools.  TAFE libraries have to accommodate a huge range of student interests, and there are many with very small student populations.  Judy Ryan added that there had been in the past an attempt at setting up a national consortium for TAFEs, but it had not been sustainable.

Government libraries
Kathy Stapleton said there is a wide range of government libraries, in terms of resources and subject areas.  A consortium such as this might provide a way of demonstrating value to their stakeholders.  Alison Billing indicated that NSW government libraries support the proposal, but short term take-up would depend largely on economic factors.  Avoiding the administrative costs within individual libraries was an important factor.  Authentication might be an issue, but the proposal is a good opportunity, especially for very small government agencies.

 

Following the lunch break, Jan Fullerton asked for a show of hands to indicate support for continuing work on the initiative.  There was unanimous support around the table.

There was also support for the continued role of the National Library in leading the work on this.  It was decided that the existing Reference Group, with some changes, would continue the work. 

The Reference Group consists of:
Roxanne Missingham
Kathy Stapleton
Jerelynn Brown
Teresa Brook
Julie Rae (chair)
Lynn Fletcher
Lindsay Harris
Diane Costello
Heather Gordon
Lorene Furmage
Richard Sayers

The Reference Group met and formed sub-groups to work on the key issues identified in the discussion:

  • Products (Kathy Stapleton, Lorene Furmage, Teresa Brook and Lynn Fletcher and Sandra Henderson. Thomas Girke later volunteered to join this group).
  • Costing (Julie Rae, Diane Costello, Roxanne Missingham, Richard Sayers);
  • Governance (Lindsay Harris, Jerelynn Brown, Heather Gordon, Erica Ryan);
  • Communications Plan (may want to coopt additional people for this group).  Susan Magnay and Richard Sayers.

These groups to work toward completing their work by the end of March 2006.

The Reference Group will reconvene early in 2006, possibly at VALA, and the Forum is likely to meet again in April-May.  By this time it may be possible to launch the consortium and announce the membership of a governance group. Library and Information Week 2006 may be a good vehicle for promoting the initiative.

It was proposed that the Reference Group meet by teleconference at the end of October (28 October, 3pm - NLA will advise details)

About This Site | Copyright | Privacy | Accessibility | Site Map | Site Search | Content A-Z | Contact Us