Interlibrary Loan Subcommittee Agenda

October 29, 2024 at 10 a.m.

Online via Zoom

 

 

Present: Mark Cullen, VER; Natalie Kruse, MFD ; Nathan Rybarczyk, BAR; Emily Wilcox, MAD; Kathy Wolkoff, MAD; Amanda Bosky, STO; Renee Ziegler, ACL; Amanda Wakeman, COL; Chad Dally, STP; Charles Danner, STP; Rachel Holcomb, MRO

SCLS Staff present: Jean Anderson; Heidi Oliversen

Recorder: Jean Anderson

 

1.      Call to Order 10:02 am

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda

 

2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: March 26, 2024

a.      Kathy Wolkoff moved for approval, Nathan Rybarczyk seconded. Motion passed.

 

3.      Action Items - none

 

4.      Discussion

a.      Madison OLL Update

                                                              i.      Portage County

1.      STP decided to have MAD take over their borrowing as of the first of the year. Charles has dates for MAD to come up to do training.

2.      This is similar to what happened with MID a couple of years ago when MAD absorbed their borrowing.

3.      MAD doesn’t anticipate any problems in the transition.

4.      MFD and BAR continue to borrow on their own

                                                             ii.      ILL Contacts at member libraries

1.      For when MAD has lending questions about the materials to we lend to other libraries.

2.      MAD sometimes has to reach out for a number of reasons – missing a disk and need to charge the borrowing library so reach out to owning library to find out how much to bill. Or checking the shelf to make sure something is returned or not. Mostly circulation issues. Practice has been to reach out to circulation for these questions.

3.      Would member libraries rather that MAD communicate anything to do with OLL with the usual point person (the borrowing point person) or would libraries rather MAD contact the circulation staff for circulation related questions.

4.      STO – contact circulation. MFD – either way, Natalie works closely with circulation. BAR – contact Nathan. VER – contact circulation (right now). ACL – contact Renee

5.      Consensus is to keep it simple and send everything to the usual OLL contact and they will forward onto other staff, as needed.

                                                           iii.      WISCAT

1.      Continue to be free for 2025

2.      New agreement will come in December and needs to be completed by January. BAR and MFD will need to fill the agreement out individually. MAD will fill out the form on behalf of the rest of the libraries.

                                                           iv.      ILL Landscape statewide and nationally

1.      Wisconsin: discovered by happenstance that UW Eau Claire wasn’t lending any longer on OCLC. Kathy reached out and they said they dropped OCLC membership and indicated that UW River Falls was dropping theirs. EC thinks that in the future the UW System libraries will be dropping out of OCLC. Joy Pohlman confirmed that the UW System is moving away from OCLC.

a.      At some point their collection will be accessible through WISCAT.

b.      Mirroring with what happened with public libraries dropping out of OCLC.

c.       Not sure about their cataloging and and how discovery will be happening.

d.      Wanted us to be aware of this change and how it might affect what we do

e.      12/13/2024 Update: Kathy found out that UW Libraries are dropping out of OCLC for ILL and will still be using OCLC for cataloging and metadata. Presumably, their holdings will still be visible in WorldShare.

2.      National: similar thing is happening with more libraries dropping OCLC and using other resource sharing options

a.      Potentially affecting our access to things outside of Wisconsin.

b.      State of Texas has adopted a model that is a lot like Wisconsin – they have a central clearinghouse (like WISCAT/DPI) – but we haven’t figured out how we can get into borrowing items from Texas (they can borrow from us)

                                                                                                                                      i.      All of the big libraries (San Antonio, Dallas, etc.) are non-suppliers in OCLC

3.      The fact that we use ILLiad gives us some ability to interface with other systems. We’re well positioned to jump over some of the hoops/walled gardens to connect with other non-OCLC systems

4.      What happens to discovery – how do we find things without OCLC/WorldCat?

a.      It’s not as easy as it used to be – it’s not impossible but it’s not as efficient as it used to be.

5.      Nathan has noticed similar issues – especially with Texas. Question – libraries borrowing on their own started as a pilot to take the burden off MAD. What’s the future of OCLC at SCLS? Kathy – would be very surprised if we dropped out of OCLC.

6.      Question – updated custom list for borrowing things? Nathan will contact Kathy to find out to update his lists.

7.      Natalie has noticed similar issues as MAD and BAR. Seems like a step backwards in lending

8.      Question: Where does Minnesota fit into this? A: Minitex works as a clearinghouse for much of MN and the Dakotas. The relationship and access are both good. Same as Massachusetts. Issues with Texas and Ohio.

b.      Ebook loans via ILL/OLL

                                                              i.      OverDrive style ebook/eaudio, the licensing models for resource sharing aren’t there.

                                                             ii.      Sometimes, a more scholarly type ebook can be obtained through OLL. It’s a pretty narrow set of ebooks from a publisher who is willing to license that way. Usually PDFs of a single chapter or book if that is written into their license.

                                                           iii.      Controlled digital lending – what was behind the IA lawsuit.

1.      Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/major-book-publishers-defeat-internet-archive-appeal-over-digital-scanning-2024-09-04/

c.       ILS Investigation and impact on ILL workflows

                                                              i.      Use BV – generic records and public note fields to associate items with a barcode. Wondered how a new ILS would affect that workflow.

                                                             ii.      Heidi anticipates the two primary vendors that we are investigating have similar structures in place. Creating a generic or fast add record. Both have that ability.

                                                           iii.      Anticipated date for final proposal is May, 2025.

d.      2025 Meeting Schedule

                                                              i.      March 25, 2025

                                                             ii.      October 28, 2025

5.      Plan for next meetings:  March 25, 2025

a.      Records retention

b.      ILS Evaluation Update

 

6.      Adjournment 11:01 am

 

 

For more information about the Interlibrary Loan Subcommittee, contact Jean Anderson.

SCLS staff are available to attend cluster meetings to share information and answer questions pertaining to this committee meeting and other departmental projects.

 

ILL/Minutes/10-2024