Illinois - Library Systems

RE: Administrative/Leadership Standards

2009-07-10T18:03:41Z

I have been impressed with the careful thought that has been given thus far to the revised standards. On a detail note Under Library System Board of Directors f, I believe that the it should probably read "library system board" rather than "library board."

I agree with the earlier comment about using the word "ensure" in relationship to unserved members. It is important to work with folks who are interested in forming a viable library service entity and provide the information that they need but "ensure" does seem to imply a more proactive role. As a system employee who deals with public libraries, I can verify that we do get some inquiries from citizens at large but most of those folks start by making inquiries at a nearby library which will refer them on to us.

Administrative/Leadership Standards

2009-07-08T18:14:30Z

I agree that this is well thought out and presented in a nicely concise fashion. I would long to see some reference to the very important work of working with other systems to explore new ideas and "scan the horizon."
Pierre

RE: Administrative/Leadership Standards

2009-07-02T18:58:47Z

I have a couple of comments.

First, a small note: Under Expectations, section (b), I believe the second sentence should say "The library system staff carries out the board's policies," for clarity.

Second, under Advocacy and Innovation, I'm concerned about section (b), which reads "b) The system shall ensure that non-member libraries are aware of the advantages of system membership and encourage them to become members."

I take issue with the word "ensure." While this is a lofty goal, it is impossible for systems to even be aware of all the non-member libraries that may exist within their system boundaries. In addition, systems are already understaffed as it is, and often are unable to keep up with needs of current members, and yet there are still many private schools, corporate libraries, and small colleges which are not members.

I would prefer that my system focus on serving current members. While promoting system benefits is important, I would suggest the language should read "The system shall make information available to non-member libraries..." or even "The system shall promote the advantages of system membership to non-member libraries..." rather than using the word "ensure."

Otherwise, the document seems very thorough and well thought out.

Jeannie

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-07-01T19:09:24Z

Dear Kathleen,

First of all, I would like to thank you and the committee for the hard work in retooling the Illinois Library System Standards. I have read both the revised version and the committee responses dated June 9, 2009. It is heartening that concerns can be voiced and taken into consideration.

I am a little confused by the committee's responses to Core services:

"Some respondents have expressed interest in a definition of 'basic or core services.' The core services will be identified and defined when the standards in their entirety near completion. The committee's initial thinking is that core services are offered for free or a nominal charge. The committee also will be discussing whether or not core services possibly differ from system to system. These issues are not yet resolved and are on the committee agenda for discussion."

I agree that core services should be offered for free or a nominal charge. Where I become confused is if core services change from system to system how could they be considered core? I was under the impression that it meant that each system provided these services. I could see the amount of the service provided changing, such as having a minimum number of programs per your members. I can see wanting to have minimum standards. It becomes a little tricky in that you want to continue to challenge the systems who are exceeding those standards with ease.

I also really like the fact that member libraries have responsibilities. I am not sure that member libraries are always aware of these responsibilities. Who is going to tell them? As was suggested previously of having repercussions for not attending trainings or taking full advantage of what the library systems offer, I would be hesitant to be punitive. I am the only certified librarian in the district with five schools. There may be a year in which I cannot take another day off professionally, but we still participate in interlibrary loan. Would this mean that my library is now not a "good" member? I do think there needs to be participation and giving back to the system at some level, but do we ever really take full advantage of what is offered us?

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jeanné Lohfink
District Librarian, Beach Park CCSD #3
NSLS Board Member

RE: Resource Sharing Standards

2009-07-01T19:07:04Z

Dear Kathleen,

The Resource Sharing portion seems very thorough. Kudos to you and your team.

I have a few questions about c under Assessments:

"Each System shall monitor and evaluate the resource sharing capabilities and effectiveness of member libraries."

I just wonder at the practicality of say my system, NSLS, evaluating over 400 libraries and their capabilities for resource sharing. Are there consequences if we are found not to be sharing effectively? Is that the role of each System? Is this evaluation yearly? quarterly?

Thank you for clarification,

Jeanné Lohfink

District Librarian, Beach Park CCSD #3

NSLS Board Member

Administrative/Leadership Standards

2009-07-01T16:21:13Z

The Library System Standards Committee welcomes your comments about the newly posted discussion draft of administrative/leadership standards for library systems. Thank you in advance for your input about the draft standards for library systems as well as related member library responsibilities.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-22T01:11:51Z

Thank you for the opportunity presented to the library community to comment upon the proposed system standards. As a library trustee who also serves on a system board of directors, I have attended many high quality and timely programs offered by my library system. Some programs have been presented by very talented system staff members. Other programs have brought nationwide experts to our local library community including: parliamentarians, media specialists, and legal experts.

The proposed system standards will offer guidance for “identified and anticipated needs.” However, in order to optimize the practice usefulness of these standards, I would encourage the committee to expand the proposed standards to include definitions for specific phrases in the proposed standards, such as: “basic/core services,” “continuing education” and “cost recovery fee.” Additionally, clarification regarding the meaning of “most” as used in the phrase “most consulting and continuing education programs” would be appreciated. Would 51% of the programming meet the system standard’s definition of “most”? Or would the standard require something closer to 75% or 95% or more? These expanded definitions and clarifications of terms would provide valuable information for further comment and discussion regarding the proposed standards.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed system standards.

Kathy Caudill
President, Ela Area Public Library District Board of Trustees
Vice President, North Suburban Library System Board of Directors

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-19T15:26:43Z

I agree with the concerns expressed by others in this forum over the proposed revision that would require continuing education/professional development programs to be provided at no cost to member libraries. With system funding flat for almost two decades, revenue from the state is spread extremely thin for systems operations. At NSLS, we offer, as do other systems, innovative programming that attracts library professionals from member libraries as well as staff from libraries in other systems. In many cases, we partner with other systems. While systems do an excellent job at providing basic/core programs to members despite having limited resources to do so, continuing education enables systems to meet demand from Illinois libraries for timely training and education vital to what members need to stay abreast of current topics and trends in new library services, organizational effectiveness, and leadership. Continuing education should remain core to the mission of systems. At NSLS, we are able to meet this demand, but only by recouping programming costs. If the revised Systems Standards mandate continuing education at no cost, it is crucial that there be an accompanying increase in funding. Given the current and likely long term financial challenges for the state, this is unlikely. If that is the case, I strongly believe that the systems should be allowed to continue to deliver high quality continuing education on a cost recovery model.

Christopher Stewart
President, Evanston Public Library Board of Trustees
Board of Directors, North Suburban Library System

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-12T21:10:15Z

The proposed Illinois Library System Standard on Professional Development and Consulting is vaguely written even though it could be more precise. Why? Is the vagueness intentionally meant to provide the flexibility specified in the document entitled Working Assumptions Guiding the Revision of the Multitype Library System Standards October 2008? Assumption #4 of that document states: “Flexible standards allow for creative ways to provide basic and extended services.” Using vague terminology to provide flexibility seems to contradict the committee's intent as set forth in paragraph 3 of the same document which reads: "The committee also recognizes that both standards for library systems' services and clearly articulated expectations for system member libraries must be reflected in the revised standards documents.” Unless an accompanying document is also being prepared which provides clear language, the strength of this standard to the Illinois library community is compromised.

The ability of the Illinois State Library and the individual library system itself to fairly determine a system's compliance with any one of the 5 expectations is dependent on the use of clear language and the elimination of vague terms in the proposed standard.

One example of vague terminology failing the reader is expectation 'd'. It specifies that 'most' consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries. The term 'most' does not inform either the State Library or the Library System how much of what the term refers to. Are we counting programs or programming hours? Are we counting programs offered or only those that fill and actually run? Does the term “most” mean 50% or more, or is it some other unmentioned number hinted at, but not specified by use of the vague term “most'.

Will the future of system programming come to include program 'juggling' at reporting year end to ensure the balance of 'most'? For example, a nationally known speaker scheduled for a program during reporting month 12 could potentially spoil the required balance if some scheduled, cost free classes did not run that particular month. The expectations portion of the proposed standards, should contain clearly articulated language so that systems can accurately self-monitor and be evaluated fairly.

The shared understanding derived through the use of definite language is a benefit not only to the system standards revision process but to everything professional librarianship represents. The committee for the Illinois library Systems Standards thankfully, has already let us know , as evidenced by the very existence of this discussion forum that there is a desire for the library community to 'be on the same page' regarding the system standards.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathy Berman
Prospect Heights Public Library Trustee
Board of Directors, North Suburban Library System

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-12T01:20:03Z

Thank you for your work on this document, and for the opportunity to comment and critique your work. You are setting the model of transparency that we can all aspire to achieve.

I echo the concerns that others have so eloquently expressed regarding the use of the words “no cost” for continuing education programs. In the past year I have had the honor of being director of two different public libraries located in two different library systems. The type and cost of the continuing education programs offered in my current system are very different from what was offered by my previous system. What is most important is that both systems did/do a great job of meeting the needs of their membership.

Perhaps the committee is optimistic about future funding of the State Library and Illinois Library Systems, but I feel now is not the time to place cost recovery restrictions on the systems. It is amazing what the State Library and the Illinois library systems have been able to do with flat and/or decreased budgets over the past several years. They have had to make some very tough decisions. The cost related to programming should be the decision of the systems based on their membership's needs and priorities.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-06-11T18:52:10Z

I have read the draft of the Professional Development & Consulting Standards and I am concerned with c) and d) in Expectations, especially: "Most consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries. However, Systems may charge a cost recovery fee for specialized programs presented by speakers not associated with Systems or the Illinois State Library." While there is good intent behind this, I believe the Expectation places undue restriction on Systems. I wear many hats in the library field: public library trustee, system board director, recent MLS graduate, and new librarian. My experience with professional development through NSLS has been invaluable over the years as I have sought to acquire new knowledge and skills in order to be effective in all of my library roles. NSLS does offer some free programming, but also brings in nationally reputable and renowned speakers and consultants on a cost-recovery model. Without this, NSLS would not be able to provide the kind of top-notch professional development programs currently offered to member libraries. These programs provide outstanding professional development opportunities and bring in speakers that would normally only be available at national or state conferences. If Systems are required to make "most" of their consulting and continuing education programs free, I don't see how high quality, cost-effective programming can be sustained.
Please weigh this carefully in your decision-making. I think that this system standard is one of the most important, along with resource sharing.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on these proposals.
Megan Ower
NSLS Board Director
200 West Dundee
Wheeling, IL 60090

RE: Resource Sharing Standards

2009-05-21T17:15:44Z

I suggest a clause at the end of point e in Expectations: “Systems shall develop shared staff expertise in resource sharing and shall collaborate to identify and implement inter-system and statewide resource sharing solutions while not compromising local and regional resource sharing strengths.”

In point n of Illinois Library System Responsibilities, I have a concern about the ability to develop “equitable, statewide delivery frequencies.” With the extremes of geographical density, traffic patterns, and distances involved among the various library systems, there may not be an equitable frequency statewide. Perhaps a better goal would be to establish minimum frequency levels and allow systems to develop delivery schedules that best meet the needs of the member libraries and their patrons.

RE: Resource Sharing Standards

2009-05-21T16:56:50Z

System Responsibilities d. “Strongly encourage member libraries to participate in a shared integrated library system. Systems should work collaboratively to eliminate existing restrictions on participation in such systems.”

I am not sure what this means. Is this allowing a system to let a library from another system into their database (LLSAP)? Currently, participation in the LLSAP is reserved for full members of the system. With different membership standards between systems and different thresholds for LLSAP membership this would be problematic. Local control of the LLSAP, which has made it a strong resource for its members, could be compromised.

Reciprocal Borrowing is mentioned under system responsibilities in m. and again under member responsibilities in h. Is not reciprocal borrowing a public library activity defined as a patron going to a library not his/her home library and checking out materials? There may be some intergovernmental agreements between public and academic libraries for mutual reciprocal borrowing between citizens and students but they are outside of the current reciprocal borrowing agreements.

M should state “Establish policies that support the reciprocal borrowing of materials among all ILLINET Public libraries. Correspondingly, h under Member Responsibilities would read, “Public libraries would be strongly encouraged to participate in reciprocal borrowing agreements within the System and statewide.

The concept of reciprocal access is not mentioned. This happens when a library makes available materials by loan, photocopying, or through arrangements for library visits.

All libraries should provide reciprocal access to their library’s collections as legally permitted.

RE: Resource Sharing Standards

2009-05-20T16:43:03Z

I have a couple of questions. Is there a difference between D and E under Illinois Library System Responsibilities? D talks about encouraging member libraries to participate in a shared ILS. E address participation in the creation of regional and/or statewide automated systems. Is there a practical or technical difference between the two?

In the same section (Illinois Library System Responsibilities) H and M are redundant, as they are included in A.

And for the less academic libraries, could a definition of "resource description" be included? I am assuming this refers to cataloging, but am not sure I understand the phrase's meaning.

I love the fact that several complementary services (cataloging, ILL, delivery, etc.) are grouped together. This is very practical. Thank you!

Resource Sharing Standards

2009-04-30T14:24:34Z

Your comments are welcomed regarding the discussion draft of the Resource Sharing standards. Click on the Overview tab and you will find the draft document posted at the top of the list. The Library System Standards Committee will be reviewing the comments at its meeting on May 28, 2009. Thank you.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-04-21T21:40:44Z

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the individual standards as they are promulgated.

With regard to the draft Professional Development and Consulting standard, I would appreciate knowing the committee's thinking regarding combining these two into one standard. In the current standards they are separate. I am wondering if the thinking was that both involved learning: in one case, one-on-one learning and in the other case, group learning. If so, I think this approach misses a critical point. These standards are about two distinct areas of work undertaken by regional library systems. The work of professional development and the work of consulting are very different from each other. In some systems, some of the same staff members do both. But in all cases, each of these services is an outreach to members necessitating different analysis, different planning, and different goals. Putting the two together denigrates the importance of each of them, in my view. Additionally and speaking only for the North Suburban Library System (NSLS) these two together account for about 50% of our state grant.

I am concerned with the type of reporting that would be required. The reporting seems to focus on counting work done by system staff in facilitating professional development and consulting. But the reporting fails to come to grips with what difference it makes if staff in member libraries attends professional development events or receives any sort of consulting assistance from system staff. I don't have any bright ideas re how to correct this but it just appears to be a collection of statistics with no attention given to what difference the two services have made.

I am grateful that there have already been several comments about the negative effect of requiring "most" of the professional development events offered by the system to be free. This approach assumes a model in which system staff are themselves the trainers. While that might work in some regional library systems, it is not what is happening now and at least here in NSLS, it would cut participation dramatically. Many NSLS libraries are well-funded and staffs attend conferences and hire consultants and expertise as needed. While I am sure NSLS members respect NSLS staffers, it is not likely they would be interested in attending sessions here at the system center to hear from us even if the sessions were free. Our members are sophisticated and it is challenging to present a series of professional development events and activities that attract and interest them. Is it the intent of this standards revision process to change the way systems are providing professional development currently?

Finally one of my most serious concerns is the committee's stated intent to promulgate at least six standards. Currently regional library systems are required to be responsive to four standards: consulting, continuing education, delivery, automation/resource sharing. We have not had an increase in funding since 1989, or twenty years ago. Much in our world has changed since then. If we are having trouble providing services to meet four standards, it would seem almost impossible to provide services to meet six standards, one of which is an amalgam of two of the existing standards and already consumes half of our NSLS system grant. It begs the question of whether these standards are envisioned as a floor of services so that system members in Shawnee and in North Suburban can expect to receive approximately the same level of service. Or are these standards aspirational? Do they represent areas of work systems might undertake? The latter approach will allow systems to be very different from each other. I had understood that one of the reasons for undertaking this revision was so that systems would be more alike and to increase accountability and to make us more understandable to state officials. By creating a set of standards that includes areas of work that we are not currently engaged in and certainly do not have the money to pursue, it doesn't seem like it is a path to system standardization, if that was what was wanted. But perhaps I don’t understand.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the process and on this particular standard.

Sarah Ann Long
Executive Director
North Suburban Library System
200 W. Dundee Road
Wheeling, IL 60090
847 459 1300 X 7125
slong@nsls.info
www.librarybeat.org

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-03-19T20:01:15Z

Dear Kathleen,

One of the strengths of Illinois library systems has been its continuing education component. Our library relies on the array of workshops that are provided locally, which saves our resources both time-wise and financially.

In the "Expectations" section, I am advocating for locally defined “core classes” and also would like to see the scope of the “specialized programs“ redefined to permit systems to structure continuing education locally that best addresses its own members' needs, even if it is on a cost-recovery basis. It does not seem realistic to expect that CE by and large could be provided at no cost.

We are missing a critical opportunity for education and enrichment if we depend only on our local libraries for instruction and content. I will be disappointed if these standards serve to limit a system’s ability to provide speakers and instructors whose perspectives broaden our knowledge and challenge our staffs.

New Illinois Standards

2009-03-17T15:52:36Z

I also hope that there will be some definition of "core training". I would consider workshops like "Reference Basics", "Reference Interview" and "Basic Collection Development" to be core classes, yet at MLS, we do pay. I don't think offering some of these at no charge would preclude offer others, especially special presenters and programs, at a fee.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-03-05T22:03:58Z

My concern about requiring systems to provide continuing education to its members at low or no cost to the members is that my library staff will lose cost-effective access to nationally known speakers who are experts in the library field and trend spotters from other disciplines. Although we can't afford to send many of our staff members to national conferences because of the high registration, travel, and lodging costs, we can afford to send nearly everyone who is interested to programs offered within 10 miles of our library. Each year our system polls staff members who have attended these national programs for their choice of the best speakers and/or programs. The system then offers these speakers/programs to us forreasonable and affordable fees. Without this service, our staff members would either have to go without or be exposed to far fewer of the brightest and best in our profession. So, rather than being a cost-savings to our library, this standard requirement would actually cost us more, in terms both of dollars and lost opportunities.

RE: Professional Development & Consulting Standards

2009-02-27T19:35:18Z

Great work overall!

I, too, am concerned about the definition of "basic/core programs" in the Expectations section (c), as well as the word "most" in section (d) below it, which states:
"Most consulting and continuing education programs will be at no cost to member libraries."

As a former system consultant, I know that the continuing education offered at systems is varied. Some systems provide extensive CE on a cost-recovery basis, and by doing so, are able to offer much more variety and depth in their continuing education programs. I would hate to see some systems forced to cut out these offerings by standards that require them to offer "Most" of their programs at no cost. I would argue that the word "most" needs to be changed to "basic." And I agree with the respondent who suggested that each system be allowed to define what "basic" means for their members.

Jeannie Dilger-Hill, Director
La Grange Public Library