From your 1997-98 OCLC Users' Council Delegates:
Bernard Strong Marcia Talley
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
ph: 202-287-9463 ph: 410-293-6905
June 17, 1997
OCLC USERS COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
TO: OCLC Users Council Delegates
FROM: Richard Van Orden, Users Council Program Manager
SUBJECT: Minutes of the May 18-20, 1997 Users Council Meeting
The OCLC Users Council met May 18-20 in Dublin, Ohio to discuss model
partnerships and to hear updates from OCLC staff. The meeting focused on
"Model Partnerships: Information Producers, Libraries and OCLC." It was
the last of three under the 1996/97 general program theme of "Model
Partnerships: Building the Electronic Library." Users Council president
Victoria Hanawalt (OCLC Pacific) presided.
Delegates elected new members to the Users Council Executive Committee
for 1997/98. Brad Baker (ILLINET), university librarian/director of Media
Services, Northeastern Illinois University, is the new vice
president/president-elect. New delegates at-large are Dan Iddings
(PALINET), assistant director, Networked and Automated Services, Carnegie
Library of Pittsburgh; Ed Meachen (WILS), associate vice chancellor for
Information Services, Library/Learning Center, University of
Wisconsin-Parkside; and Lizabeth Wilson (OCLC PACIFIC), associate director
of libraries, University of Washington. At the conclusion of the meeting,
Victoria Hanawalt, 1996/97 Users Council president and college librarian at
Reed College, Portland, Oregon, passed the gavel to Merryll Penson
(SOLINET), director, Columbus State University Library (Georgia), who will
serve as Users Council president for the 1997/98 year.
John Shaloiko (SUNY/OCLC), chair of the Election Certification
Committee, reported that delegate elections were held in fourteen networks
this year. All of these elections were done in compliance with Users
Council Bylaws and the results were certified by the committee.
Merryll Penson, on behalf of the Finance Committee which she chaired,
proposed a 1997/98 Users Council budget of $156,248. This amount to support
the expenses associated with next year*s Users Council and committee
meetings was unanimously approved by delegates during the business session
on Tuesday morning.
Pamela Brown (ILLINET), chair of the Bylaws Committee, presented eleven
changes in the Users Council Bylaws proposed by the Bylaws and Executive
Committees. Several of these changes are designed to strengthen the process
whereby the Nominating Committee prepares a slate of candidates for various
Users Council leadership positions. Several recommendations originally were
suggested by the Ad Hoc Committee to Review Nominations and Elections
Procedures chaired by Brad Baker. All of the proposed changes were
unanimously adopted by the delegates.
In her Executive Committee report, Victoria Hanawalt noted that the
previously-announced Users Council meeting date of October 11-13 was changed
to October 4-6, 1998 because the later date conflicted with the Columbus Day
holiday. Next year*s Users Council meets on October 5-7, 1997, February
8-10, 1998, and May 18-20, 1998. She thanked Brad Baker, Barbara Gubbin, Ed
Meachen, and Merryll Penson, the other members of this year*s Executive
Committee, for their hard work at ten meetings in planning Users Council
activities. Departing delegates who receive a commemorative keepsake from
OCLC during the summer were recognized for their years of service to the
OCLC Users Council.
Fifty-one delegates and five alternates participated in the meeting.
The alternates in attendance were Gail Bonath (BCR), Michael Kathman
(MINITEX), Mary Konkel (OHIONET), Michele Newberry (SOLINET), and Mieko
Yamaguchi (OCLC Europe). Members of the Board of Trustees Sharon Rogers,
William Crowe, Patrick O'Brien, William Potter, K. Wayne Smith, and Ellen
Waite attended as did several OCLC staff members. Network directors David
Brunell (BCR), Michael Butler (OHIONET), Bonnie Juergens (AMIGOS), Marshall
Keys (NELINET), Janet Mitchell (OCLC Europe), Mary Ann Nash (OCLC Pacific),
and James Rush (PALINET) also attended.
OCLC PRESIDENT*S REPORT
Delegates listened to Dr. K. Wayne Smith, OCLC president and chief
executive officer, report on the status of OCLC*s activities in its three
priority areas of reference services, enhancements to cataloging and
resource sharing services, and international expansion. In the President*s
Report, he also talked to delegates about the 1997/98 budget and prices and
the value of OCLC membership. Dr. Smith included in his remarks the
"Over 9,000 libraries in 51 countries are now using FirstSearch. We
continue to enhance the FirstSearch operating system to keep response time
running in the two-second range and to improve the system*s efficiency.
Usage this spring peaked at about 213,000 searches a day with 1,800
simultaneous users. About 19 percent of FirstSearch usage is now on the
Web. There are now 65 databases available through the service. This
summer, we will add the OCLC Union Lists of Periodicals, a database of over
7 million local data records, and H.W. Wilson Select Full Text, an
affordable, new, full-text database providing coverage of over 430
periodicals. We recently announced that FirstSearch now includes URLs and
hot links for Internet resources on some records in WorldCat. Development
planning for FirstSearch 5.0 is also under way. This includes everything,
from back end to front end to operating system to application software.
This is a major undertaking and one that is absolutely necessary to keep
FirstSearch on the leading edge and our costs as low as possible.
We are getting ready to launch FirstSearch Electronic Collections
Online (ECO) in June. Nineteen library sites and consortia, representing
more than 100 libraries in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand
have been previewing ECO since March. During two weeks in April, 15 ECO
libraries logged an average of 2,500 searches a week, and they viewed about
500 articles a week. The system itself has performed flawlessly. We now
have nearly 500 journals from 15 publishers under contract and are
aggressively working on loading the journals into ECO. This new way of
managing your electronic journal collection will start up with some 100
journals from 7 publishers, and with 6 subscription agents, including Faxon,
EBSCO, and Blackwell.
We recently released SiteSearch 3.1, which moves us closer in terms of
integrating local and remote resources. We are now working on a version of
SiteSearch that will enable libraries to install it without a lot of
involvement by OCLC staff. SiteSearch has been the key to such high-profile
systems as GALILEO in Georgia, the Washington Research Libraries Consortium,
and the CIC*s Virtual Electronic Library. SiteSearch will become the
foundation for OCLC*s Web products and the key to the integration of
products and services, which is one of the main objectives in our updated
Cataloging and Resource Sharing
On February 28, the OCLC cataloging and resource sharing system hit a
new transaction high of 108 messages per second. Message traffic continues
to run at about 4 million messages a day. So far this fiscal year, we have
added 208 new cataloging members and now have a grand total of 7,349
cataloging members. The National Library of Medicine is starting a
six-month pilot project using Z39.50 access to OCLC for copy cataloging. We
have developed software that will convert UNIMARC records to USMARC, and
vice versa. This is another major step forward for international library
OCLC is geared up for fixed-fee or subscription pricing for cataloging,
and those libraries that want to switch to it can do so in the coming fiscal
year. Thus far, 58 libraries have signed up. Thirty-five libraries now use
PromptCat which is processing some 100,000 titles annually for nine vendors.
Thanks to the Cataloging-in-Publication upgrade program, only 4.9 percent
of the PromptCat records delivered to libraries are CIP. This represents a
dramatic increase in productivity for those PromptCat libraries. Baker and
Taylor will soon come on stream as a PromptCat vendor, something over 40
libraries have been waiting for. In total, there are now five book vendors
actively participating in PromptCat and nine more in the wings.
On March 20, OCLC staff attended a reception at Harvard to commemorate
the successful conclusion of the Harvard RetroCon Project, which took five
years and involved over five million records. This massive and monumental
project also resulted in the creation of the Harvard Resource File, which is
the first enrichment file to augment OCLC WorldCat. As my former professor
and friend, Sid Verba, the Director of Libraries at Harvard, noted: *This
was a memorable celebration for Harvard, for OCLC, and for the library
OCLC*s ILL system turned 18 years old this April. Users are now doing
nearly 8 million interlibrary loans a year on it. Since we met last, the
University of Oregon hit ILL Gold Record number 72, Ohio State hit number
73, and Bridgewater State College hit number 74. It is starting to look
like we will hit the 100 millionth online interlibrary loan sometime in the
Year 2000. Of course, the date on that ILL request will be
millennium-compliant. ILL Fee Management continues to increase
productivity. Through March 31 of the current fiscal year, OCLC has
processed more than $1.6 million in debits and credits for the 920 libraries
that are now using IFM. This summer, we will enhance the ILL system with a
direct request capability and improved management statistics. Finally, in
interlibrary loan, I should call particular attention to this statistic*last
year, libraries in the Association of Research Libraries initiated three
percent of their OCLC ILL transactions on FirstSearch. We believe that this
is the start of a major trend, and is yet another step in the direction of
integrating OCLC services.
In Europe, the British Library is now using both OCLC*s Cataloging and
Interlibrary Loan systems. OCLC is doing another major retrospective
conversion project for the National Library of Wales. We have loaded the
Czech National Bibliography into WorldCat. Eighty-seven percent of the
records were original. We are also loading the Slovenian National
Bibliography into WorldCat.
In April, in Paris, more than 100 delegates from libraries in 10
Western European countries attended the 16th annual OCLC Europe Users Forum.
The meeting was held in Paris to celebrate 10 years of participation of the
French academic library community in OCLC. Today, 45 French universities
participate, and they have added 150,000 original cataloging records and
more than 2.5 million holding symbols to WorldCat since 1987. The French
Ministry of Education has also funded the conversion of 1.5 million French
catalog records to machine-readable form. As you know, two French Library
Directors have been active in Users Council, and one, Christine Deschamps,
is now a member of the OCLC Board of Trustees. She is also running for the
next President of IFLA!
In Germany, OCLC has been a successful catalyst for the harmonization
of German and AACR2 cataloging rules. The German cataloging rules committee
is adopting changes that will make OCLC MARC records more useful to German
libraries. In Russia, 20 libraries are doing a FirstSearch trial. OCLC
Vice President Phyllis Spies is serving as project advisor to the Russian
Shared Cataloging System Project, which is funded by the Soros Foundation.
This will develop a shared system for Cyrillic cataloging records. OCLC
will be the Russian system*s source for Roman alphabet records.
In Brazil, in the wake of the Sao Paulo retrospective conversion
project, many libraries are now considering OCLC for online and CD-ROM
cataloging as well as retrospective conversion. In Mexico, the National
Autonomous University of Mexico is using OCLC SiteSearch to mount its
electronic journals. UNAM is the largest university in Mexico. In West
Africa, the World Bank is sponsoring a FirstSearch demonstration as part of
the African Virtual University Project.
In the Asia Pacific region, OCLC continues to grow. We added 173 new
users in 1996, and so far in 1997, we have gained 94 new users. We now have
306 users in Japan, 115 in Korea, 90 in Taiwan, and 88 in Australia. In
Australia, the University of Queensland recently became the first library in
Australia to become a full cataloging member of OCLC, and we are now loading
about 850,000 records from Queensland into WorldCat. When asked why she
wanted to join OCLC, the Queensland library director said: *Because we want
to be a member of the global library community.* In China, OCLC is
embarking on phase two of its alliance with Tsinghua University, which will
involve site mounting of files in China on SiteSearch, including Wilson full
text and NetFirst. In short, we continue to move steadily toward our goal
of making OCLC services available around the clock, around the world.
Telecommunications and Access
We announced another round in the OCLC Workstation Replacement program
on March 1. Our goal is to help our members replace older workstations with
new, Pentium-based machines. There are still 4,300 non-Windows workstations
on the OCLC network, including 876 M300 Workstations. That*s prehistoric in
technological terms. We want to get them off the network. It*s worth
noting that OCLC has now done everything it can to extend the life of these
machines. As you know, when we first ran this program last year, OCLC
provided over $1.6 million in subsidies that enabled libraries to replace
3,000 old workstations. Our goal this time is to provide subsidies of up to
This July we will start a three-month field test of the new, $4 million
TCP/IP telecommunications network. This new network will enable OCLC to
provide member libraries with reliable service and a fivefold increase in
capacity at the same price they now have for access to OCLC via the X.25
network. During the field test, we will not be testing the technology,
which is already proven. Instead, we will simply be testing our ability to
operate the network and to provide support in a new telecommunications
Budgets and Pricing
I want to talk candidly about budgets and pricing. Here are some
important background facts: First, leaving aside IDI so the comparison will
be on an apples-to-apples basis, there are fewer people at OCLC than when I
arrived over eight years ago. There are fewer vice presidents. And fewer
people are budgeted for next year than were budgeted for this year. Given
OCLC*s growth (70 percent) and the number of new services provided, I
believe this represents strong evidence of some serious cost control.
Second, during my tenure, some $45 million dollars in subsidies, credits,
and price cuts have been returned to the membership. This represents cash
straight off the bottom line. Third, in seven of the last eight years, OCLC
has held the line on prices for its core products, absorbing inflationary
cost increases, finding more cost-effective ways to do things, asking our
staff to always do more. Fourth, in no single member library is OCLC even
close to ten percent of that library*s total budget, so our ability to solve
any library*s overall budget problem is and will remain very limited. On
the other hand, we do listen and we do try to help.
Fifth, OCLC is not immune to the fundamental laws of economics or
business. We face the same problems you face. Like you, all of our bills
are increasing; like you, we must constantly do more with less; like you,
job stress is growing. But, unlike you, we also have bondholders that we
owe $35 million, vendors who give their best price only to AAA-rated
companies, an absolute requirement for acquiring and retaining talented
research and development staff, a necessity to keep pace with technology,
and nowhere to turn for additional funds but from the sale of our products
and services. If OCLC gets into financial trouble, no government, no
foundation, no endowment funds are available to bail us out. Finally, we
are financially viable because we work hard at it. We have a lot of
talented and dedicated staff who can make more money elsewhere. We are
successful because we take budgets and schedules and personal and financial
performance seriously. We emphasize quality and value. We know that we are
a business as well as a non-profit, membership, library organization. And
we must be good at being both.
This backdrop is important to understanding OCLC*s budgets and prices.
This is particularly true of next year*s budget, clearly the most difficult
one during my tenure at OCLC. The essence of next year*s budget problem is
a one-year cost increase totaling $15 million. For a company the size of
OCLC, whose best ever contribution number was last year*s $7.2 million, this
is an enormous problem. This increase in costs comes from four basic areas.
First, an unavoidable change in depreciation schedules. Because of the
relentless advance of technology, we have been forced to change our
depreciation schedules from a mix of 7, 5, and 3 years to a mix of 5 and 3
years. The bottom-line impact of this change over the next three years is a
negative $19 million. The bottom-line cost impact of these changes in our
depreciation schedules for next year is an unexpected $6 million.
The second area is one-time salary adjustments for what is becoming a
very scarce commodity--programmers and systems analysts. A major, new study
says one out of every ten such jobs in the country is going unfilled, that
the gap between supply and demand has increased by 43 percent in the last
ten years, and that we have a national "crisis" similar to *running out of
iron ore in the middle of the Industrial Revolution.* In order to both
recruit and retain, we have been forced to make one-time, salary adjustments
for highly technical staff totaling $500,000. Third, we now have 120
"budgeted, but open" positions at OCLC. We must fill half of these
positions or face up to the fact that new programs like electronic archiving
and electronic publishing are not going to happen on schedule or worse, not
at all. Filling 60 of these positions will cost at least an additional $4
million next year; not filling them could cost OCLC its future viability.
Fourth, OCLC is not immune to the impact of inflation and, on a cost
base of $125 million, this represents $4-5 million more in costs next year
just to stay even with this year. The cumulative total of these four items
is some $15 million in new costs during the next fiscal year. Yes, OCLC has
been doing fairly well financially and, yes, we are justifiably proud of
having three record years in a row. But we are not doing well enough to
absorb $15 million in new costs in one year. To say we can is to ignore
reality and to put OCLC on a path well-traveled by numerous bankrupt
organizations. We know from 25 years of operations that OCLC needs to earn
4-6 percent on revenues in order to meet its capital needs for growth,
research, and new technology. Indeed, in the mid-1980*s, this range was
approved by the Users Council as a policy guide for OCLC*s management to
Given this $15 million problem next year, how did we get from here to
there? In four ways. First, while deciding to fill 60 of the budgeted, but
open positions, we also decided not to fill 60 budgeted, but open positions.
We also cut the number of such authorized positions below this year*s level
and drastically changed the mix of open positions, emphasizing programmers
and systems analysts. These steps will save $4 million. Second, we cut
ongoing, approved programs by $2.5 million, the largest of these being
STEPS, the electronic publishing system originally developed for ACM.
Third, we cut back on outside programmers, consulting, travel, exhibits,
and other controllable expenditures by $2.5 million, in many cases cutting
them below this year*s actual costs Finally, we are planning on revenue
growth of $6 million, roughly $2 million of which will come from real growth
and $4 million of which will come from a modest price increase aggregating
3.5 percent, only our second real price increase in the last nine years,
assuming that next year*s inflation is below 3.5 percent. Cumulatively,
these four budget actions total some $15 million, enough to offset next
year*s additional costs.
In summary, next year*s budget calls for revenues of $164 million and a
contribution of $6 million. This planned contribution number is
significantly below last year*s contribution of $7.2 million, and below this
year*s currently forecasted contribution of $6.5 million. Assuming we make
budget next year, OCLC*s return on revenues will drop below the 4 percent
policy guideline to 3.7 percent. Next year*s budget is very tight. Many
of the cost problems are so new (e.g., depreciation changes and salary
adjustments) that we have not yet had time to adequately explain and digest
them internally much less externally. That is unfortunate, for I can assure
you that I fully understand the need for due process and full disclosure in
a membership organization. In this regard, I believe that it is significant
to note that, when given all the facts, the recommended budget and prices
were unanimously approved by the Board of Trustees, a group not noted for
being unanimous about such subjects. Finally, it also needs to be noted
that our contribution numbers have benefited significantly this year from
windfall capital gains in our portfolio. Indeed, this year*s windfall will
be some $3 million. Some of us remember that the stock market also goes
down. I do not think it prudent to count on such windfalls in the future.
Most of you know that price increases are the absolute last alternative
that I look at and the modest increase recommended to and approved by the
Board was clearly a matter of necessity, not choice. I bow to no one in my
devotion to helping libraries and I have an eight-year track record to prove
it. But I also have a responsibility to keep OCLC financially viable in the
future. There are some disturbing trends on the horizon. Library budgets
are not increasing enough to support maintaining two systems--print and
electronic. Catalog records are becoming a commodity product and there is
some leakage of records. Recruiting and retention are new and serious
problems for OCLC. Technology offers both opportunities and alternatives to
OCLC*s services, particularly ILL. Our growth is coming primarily in
low-margin areas. Reference services is highly competitive and increasingly
being dominated by giants. The simple fact is that OCLC must maintain the
necessary resources for continued investment, growth, and innovation, or we
will not be able to meet these challenges.
Value of OCLC Membership
This is and will always be your organization. OCLC belongs to the
membership. I am nothing more than the third in a line of temporary
stewards. This organization transcends any individual or any individual
member library in importance. It is, in my judgment, the best--and
increasingly the only--meaningful counterweight libraries have to the
information giants emerging from the current industry consolidation. Deep
down, each of you knows that you can rely on and influence OCLC. The
concept of the "commons" that OCLC represents is vital. The research and
innovation that OCLC does is vital. The non-profit, collaborative values
that OCLC stands for are vital. So is the continued support of the
All I ask is that on the increasingly close calls in purchasing, you
give OCLC the benefit of the doubt. If we are not price or quality
competitive, we don*t deserve your support. But where we are, we
increasingly need your support on the close calls. I like to think that we
have earned it. I know that a one or two percent difference in our sales
volume makes an enormous difference in our ability to hold the line on
prices. Rowland Brown used to be fond of saying that OCLC was as much a
religion as a business. It still is and we could use an old-fashioned
religious revival. Like the Marines, I am looking for a few, more, good
missionaries. The long-term OCLC tangibles and intangibles for libraries
are still important. There is fundamentally more at stake here than saving
a penny. At the end of the day, there is still the commons that OCLC
represents--a commons you have built and nurtured into one of the unique
wonders and treasures of the library world. This commons has fundamentally
changed research and scholarship.
This commons must somehow be preserved and strengthened. It is being
threatened by growing information giants, by enabling technology, by new
costs and new alternatives, by being taken too much for granted, and by loss
of the religion. I pledge to you that OCLC will continue to do its part
but, more than ever, we need the help and support and renewed missionary
zeal of the membership."
Sarah Long, system director, North Suburban Library System (NSLS), and
Owen Youngman, director, Interactive Media, Chicago Tribune, discussed their
innovative partnership and demonstrated the Web-based information systems
they have developed. The NSLS*s NorthStarNet [http://www.nsn.org] and the
Tribune*s Digital City [http://www.chicago.digitalcity.com] have worked
together and each has benefited from its association with the
other--NorthStarNet has received funding and promotion from the Tribune, and
Digital City has received local content from NSLS.
"Newspapers and libraries have a lot in common," said Ms. Long. "We
both are essentially nineteenth century institutions. We are both very much
based around the printing press. We both like to think that we*re in the
information business rather than the entertainment business. And we both
are very interested in local information."
Dr. Jerry Campbell, chief information officer and dean of the
university libraries at the University of Southern California, gave a
presentation titled "Libraries and Publishing: Watershed Changes and New
Wrinkles in an Historic Partnership." He suggested that the future of
libraries and publishing may be determined by a precipitating event such as
the uncoupling of the credentialing process in higher education from
publishing. New needs and opportunities for libraries will be created by
such watershed changes as a shift in the value spectrum among library
materials, a redefinition of publishing and publication, a rise in life-long
learning, a shift within universities to a more commercial model, the
expansion of distance learning and virtual universities, and getting beyond
"Whoever acts will create the future," said Mr. Campbell. "Imagine the
future you want and make it real. Libraries, for all the right reasons,
have been very slow to take action, and very good at building consensus
before taking action," he said. "We*ve been good at standards, and while
that should continue to be viewed as a high good for our community, we are
at a particular moment where we need trials and successes in order to
improve the future. And those can*t be done in the same way we*ve operated
most of our communal authority the past 45 years."
Wayne Kelley, superintendent of documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, delivered a presentation on "U.S. Government Documents and
Electronic Publishing." He described some of the difficulties and
threats--such as the lack of preservation for digital
information--associated with the increasing use of electronic documents for
the distribution of government information. He said there is a long history
of efforts to keep information in the public domain, but today we are
drifting away from that ideal.
"We have a new era," said Mr. Kelley. "Let*s make sure we don*t lose
the valuable pool of information the government provides." The
Superintendent of Documents Home Page is accessible at
[http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs]. Related information from the Coalition
for Networked Information Project on Federal Information in the Networked
Environment can be found at
John Barnes, director of electronic publishing, addressed the topic of
"OCLC*s Role and Its Partnerships with Information Producers." More
information about OCLC FirstSearch Electronic Collections Online Service
(ECO) is accessible at [http://www.oclc.org/oclc/menu/eco.htm]. Liz
Bishoff, vice president for member services, gave an update on OCLC
activities. Stuart Weibel, senior research scientist in the OCLC Office of
Research, presented a "hot topic" report on metadata and OCLC.
Tom Leonhardt (AMIGOS), coordinator, Electronic Information Resources
at the University of Oklahoma Libraries, summarized the type-of-library
discussions of the key questions for the meeting by saying that OCLC*s
assistance in the digitization of local materials, special collections, and
archives is needed. Partnerships with information producers and
plug-and-play products will assist libraries in accomplishing their
institutional missions. Among the recommendations for OCLC actions by the
research, medium academic, small academic, public, and special library
- Increase partnerships with digitizing companies, professional
associations and societies.
- Develop real-time, customized electronic management reports.
- Consider dual-tiered pricing to assist small libraries in providing
- Use push technology to provide specialized information services.
- Provide a report on merged records.
- Include imbedded URLs in bibliographic records including government
- Strengthen partnerships with local system vendors.
- Provide seamless access to local holdings for serials.
- Develop an interactive, online collection analysis system.
- Give a high priority to the educational/training programs of the OCLC
- Develop pricing that works better for small libraries.
- Add fulltext databases in consumer health, small business, and careers.
- Provide better access for non-English speakers.
- Assist in providing remote access to remote databases.
- Influence vendors to move in pro-library directions.
- Choose partners carefully.
- Move aggressively to aggregate electronic resources.
- Provide institute programs for institutional leaders.
- Load a core list of electronic journals for undergraduates.
- Add a patents and trademarks database.
- Include more non-traditional materials such as maps and archival
- Include price options which both bundle and unbundle article-level
- Enrich records with tables of contents.
- Pay more attention to electronic access to monographs.
- Use content analysis to facilitate access.
- Facilitate disintermediated or direct interlibrary loan to patrons.
The Communications and Access, Reference Services/Electronic
Publishing, Resource Sharing, and Technical Services interest groups, held
two sessions at which they discussed topics of interest in their areas of
focus. Users Council interest group co-leaders Carolyn Synder (ILLINET),
Barbara Brown (SOLINET), Merryll Penson (SOLINET), and James Williams (BCR),
reported to the council on the discussions of their respective groups.
c: Board of Trustees
Users Council Alternates
Users Group Chairs