CAUL Council of Australian University Librarians s1

CAUL Council of Australian University Librarians Meeting 1/96

Minutes of the meeting held 7-8 March 1996 at the University of Adelaide. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Professor Gavin Brown, opened the meeting and welcomed CAUL members to the University of Adelaide. 187. Attendance John Shipp (President), University of Wollongong Helen Hayes (Deputy President), University of Melbourne Ray Choate (Executive), University of Adelaide Colin Steele (Executive), Australian National University Eve Woodberry (Executive), Bond University Chris Sheargold, Australian Catholic University Lynn Hard, Australian Defence Force Academy (for 8 March) Vicki Williamson, Curtin University Margaret Cameron, Deakin University Bill Cations, Flinders University Janice Rickards, Griffith University John McKinlay, James Cook University Earle Gow, La Trobe University Neil McLean, Macquarie University Edward Lim, Monash University Nada Nadanasabapathy, Murdoch University Alex Byrne, Northern Territory University Gaynor Austen, Queensland University of Technology Don Schauder, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Alison Ransome, Southern Cross University Fran Hegarty, Swinburne University of Technology Bill Hitchins, University of Ballarat Greg Jones (vice Lois Jennings), University of Canberra Judith Edwards, University of Central Queensland Karl Schmude, University of New England Marion Bate, University of New South Wales Bill Linklater, University of Newcastle Janine Schmidt, University of Queensland Alan Bundy, University of South Australia Neil Radford, University of Sydney Madeleine McPherson, University of Southern Queensland Arthur Sale, University of Tasmania Steve O'Connor, University of Technology, Sydney Imogen Garner, University of Western Australia Aileen Stevenson (vice Kaye Welsh), University of Western Sydney Doreen Parker, Victoria University of Technology In attendance: Carolyn McSwiney, University of Notre Dame, Australia Christine Page-Hanify, University of New South Wales Diane Costello (Executive Officer, CAUL) Warren Horton & Eric Wainwright (National Library of Australia) for item 200. Eric Sowey (University of New South Wales) for item 199. 188. Apologies. Margaret Macpherson, Charles Sturt University Chris Mulder, Edith Cowan University

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 1 Lois Jennings, University of Canberra Kaye Welsh, University of Western Sydney 189. Arrangement of the agenda. a) The meeting starred for discussion agenda items 194, 195, 196, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 210, and added items: 211 Coordination for library and information services (H.Hayes) 212 Innovation (A.Sale) 213 National reciprocal borrowing (R.Choate) 214 Death of Brian Southwell b) A motion was put for adoption of the unstarred items. 190. Minutes of CAUL Meeting 2/95. The minutes circulated with the agenda and were accepted. 191. Business arising from Meeting 2/95 not otherwise included on the agenda. M.McPherson asked for further information about item 169b, instructional packages for database services. D.Costello reported that there had been no further action. J.Shipp advised that if further services were offered in 1996, then instructional packages would be prepared. 192. Minutes of CAUL Executive Meeting 1/96 were circulated with the agenda. 193. Regional reports. Papers from G.Austen, W.Cations, W.Linklater, C.Mulder, A.Byrne and W.Hitchins were circulated with the agenda. A paper from C.Steele was tabled for circulation with the minutes. (Action: DC) 194. Copyright. a) AV-CC Committee on Copyright and Intellectual Property. E.Woodberry reported that the committee membership had been reduced to five, with Professor Raoul Mortley remaining in the chair. She advised that the AVCC had released a discussion paper on intellectual property Ownership of intellectual property in universities and multiple copies should be available in each institution. She reported that Copyright Agency Ltd had approached its members and offered to represent them in terms of their electronic rights in addition to print rights. It was unclear whether CAUL would be able to negotiate directly with publishers if the publishers had opted to be represented by CAL, although it was believed that it was possible. H.Hayes tabled a draft license for libraries offering commercial document supply services. She advised that this could be used for any copying other than that for research or study. It was understood that if such a service were a commercial entity, whether or not it was making a profit, then it would require this type of license. CAUL will follow up with ACLIS with a view to preparing guidelines for the use of the license. (Action: DC) b) Electronic Reserve. J.Shipp tabled notes from a meeting between the Australian Vice- Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) and Copyright Agency Ltd (CAL) on 27 February, a memorandum from J.Mullarvey (AVCC) to Vice-Chancellors on 12 February and a letter from CAL to the AVCC on 18 December 1995. CAL’s view is that every access to a document should be remunerable. The AVCC alternative is to pay a fee to make access available. CAUL agreed that a reasonable fee to enable access or a fee per student would be acceptable. CAL is prepared to negotiate an annual licence fee, but the currently suggested amount is prohibitively expensive for CAUL member libraries. E.Lim reported that the agreement between Monash University and Allen & Unwin was based on an annual fee calculated using the retail price of the book, the number of students in the course, and the proportion of the book made available electronically. Full distribution rights accompanied the payment of the fee. H.Hayes suggested that negotiations with international publishers may be simpler because the use of their products in Australian universities did not have a negative impact on their market.

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 2 CAL argues that because students are expected to use the reserve collection, any subsequent copying is not fair dealing. Progress is unlikely until the AVCC meets again in May. 195. Preservation. K.Schmude reported that a Preservation Advisory Group comprising Janine Schmidt, Neil Radford and himself had been established. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) had responded positively to CAUL’s request to adapt the ARL preservation program. The Group will engage a consultant for this work. (Action: KS) 196. Law Libraries. A proposal for a joint meeting of CAUL, Committee of Australian Law Deans (CALD) and law librarians was circulated with the agenda. A.Byrne spoke to the proposal encouraging a program of positive collaboration with CALD, and attendance at the CALD meeting in July. It was agreed that a suitable focus would be on collections. R.Choate, W.Cations and H.Hayes will represent CAUL. S.O’Connor suggested that a briefing paper be prepared for the chairman before the meeting. (Action: AB, RC, WC, HH) Lexis-Nexis. Neil Radford raised for discussion a letter from Lexis-Nexis outlining the change to their basis for charging, from a flat rate subscription to an hourly charge compounded by a printing charge. He suggested involving CALD and the AVCC in a protest to Lexis-Nexis. C.Steele suggested reminding Lexis-Nexis of the promotional role played by universities in bringing their product to the notice of students who would use it later in their professional careers. He also suggested involving Standing Conference on National and University Libraries (SCONUL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). (Action: Executive) 197. DEET Working Group on Research Library Infrastructure J.Shipp reported that his paper on library futures and information technology should be available for circulation to CAUL soon. (Action: JS) 198. DEET Evaluations and Investigations Program. Integrated Document Access Project. D.Costello reported that the final report was due on 31 March, and would be available soon after. 199. CICOM/CICOP. Dr Eric Sowey joined the meeting at 9.30am Friday. A CICOP Test Database Report by Paul Wilkins (Monash University) was circulated prior to the meeting, as was a report by Dr Sowey. Dr Sowey reported that the work on CICOM was virtually complete as to procedure, with some data gathering remaining to be completed. The CICOP procedure is not quite complete. Two large institutions were used to compile the CICOM data, but it would be possible to establish a separate index for cost movements of monographs purchased by smaller institutions should it be thought necessary. CICOP needs a little refining to ensure that the weightings are accurate. M.Cameron questioned how resistant the CICOP data would be to variations in the number of institutions reporting data. Dr Sowey did not think that it was very sensitive to the number of contributing institutions, but stressed the importance of CAUL members’ allocating time to meet data collection deadlines. W.Cations questioned whether it was feasible to distinguish between research and undergraduate periodicals. E.Lim commented on how difficult it had been to work out the weighted averages of the different disciplines, which may possibly be explained by the differences in undergraduate and research use. Dr Sowey indicated that all submissions have indicated the same weight per periodical within each discipline. This was reasonable because the serials costed are core serials, ie serials that will in no circumstances be cancelled. Weights could legitimately be different between disciplines; this is being explored. Dr Sowey made six recommendations, with deadlines, to bring the projects to fruition. Paul Wilkins can provide information about which data is missing from CICOP. Rec 1. That CAUL formally appoint two of its members (or their nominees), each as coordinator of one of the index projects. It was agreed that Monash and Adelaide will continue to collect CICOM data. (Action: RC,EL) Rec 2. That CAUL invite each coordinator, at his/her discretion, to nominate and convene a steering group for the corresponding index project. This was approved. (Action: RC,EL)

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 3 Rec 3. That CAUL decide whether the CICOM index will, in due course, be announced for research and undergraduate monographs separately, and/or whether an overall value will be given. It was agreed that UNSW and Adelaide review this and make a recommendation to CAUL. (Action: RC,MB) Rec 4. That CAUL invite Adelaide and UNSW to consider whether they can follow identical policies on allocating acquisitions to particular funds, so as to increase the reliability of CICOM. It was agreed to refer this to Adelaide and UNSW. (Action: RC,MB) Rec 5. That CAUL request the nine libraries that contribute to CICOP to expedite their supply of 1993-1995 data, so that the database may be completed by the end of May 1996 and “official” values of CICOP for 1993-1995 may be ready by the end of July 1996. E.Lim will advise CAUL members if their CICOP data has still not been received. (Action: EL) Rec 6. That CAUL resolve which year will be the base year for “official” values of CICOM and CICOP. It was agreed that 1995 would be the base year. M.Cameron recommended that the work be published, in lay terms, when it is completed. Dr Sowey reminded CAUL that electronic materials will need attention in due course, and will be costed in a separate index. Dr Sowey explained that a geometric mean, rather than an arithmetic mean was used to average index numbers. He gave an example of two periodicals: Periodical 1 Periodical 2 Base year 100 100 Second year 200 50 Price doubled Price halved The average price should, intuitively, be unchanged. The geometric mean of 200,50 = 200x50 = 100, so the average price is unchanged. 200  50 The arithmetic mean of 200,50 = = 125, which suggests a 25% average increase, which is 2 spurious. 200. National Library of Australia. J.Shipp tabled a letter from the Director-General of the National Library on Review of National Library of Australia national coordination services and other advisory services to the Australian library community. He asked members to nominate topics which they would like discussed when NLA representatives were present. N.McLean outlined the World 1 business plan, which emphasised that if the continued development required subsidisation, then a commitment to continued support would be required. He reported that 70% of current ABN revenue came from cataloguing services. It was likely that longer- term membership of World 1 would be offset by discounted rates. There was some discussion about whether CAUL would like to be represented on the Board of World 1. This could become a contentious issue with the AVCC. CAUL may wish to be represented as a major stakeholder, but not necessarily with a financial interest. N.Radford suggested that if CAUL were to bring its members into a contractual arrangement, then this may give cause to have CAUL represented on the board. Discussion also covered whether having a seat on the board would reduce the power to negotiate and take up business issues outside the board as users of the service. CAUL is better placed to influence from within, eg changes in charges, if it has a member on the board, but doesn’t need to have any equity. NLA has a public good role to perform and if they can subsidise this through commercial services, they should. This may well become an issue where the public sector is not allowed to compete with the private sector, if it is interfering with the market. J.Schmidt asked whether the NLA Council had a role in the decision-making. D.Parker stressed that CAUL members wanted a service, with a union catalogue, for an affordable cost. She added

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 4 that CAUL was effectively a captive market, but that members could only stay in the business if it was affordable. N.Radford asked for clarification of the NLA’s agreement with Copyright Agency Ltd. Warren Horton (Director-General, NLA) and Eric Wainwright (Deputy Director-General) were welcomed to the meeting at 4.00pm Thursday. W.Horton advised that although it was not possible to circulate NLA Council minutes because of the number of confidential items, he will be providing CAUL and others with a meeting summary report, and a number of selected papers. (Action: NLA) World 1. W.Horton reported that World 1 may be established as a “quasi-company” with the Director-General agreeing to abide by all its recommendations. It would therefore be able to bring in outside expertise. It would appoint its own board members. Cost models will be discussed at the ABN Network Committee meeting on 11-12 March. World 1 would be the main business of the NLA Council meeting on 8 March. Beyond 1998/9 it was expected that development costs would decline significantly compared with operational costs. E.Wainwright commented that although ABN was very heavily dependent on the university sector five years ago, this dependence was declining, with net revenue unevenly spread across the sector. He added that charges should be announced by April, with discounts detailed, to enable institutions to make budget plans, and that contracts could be made with CAUL, a sub-group of CAUL, or individual institutions. W.Horton explained that “contributed significant equity” indicated opportunities to highlight stakeholders. He questioned whether the selling of real equity would sit well with other stakeholders. E.Wainwright indicated that it could mean a share of the operational business or a share of the intellectual property in the software. Jan Rossi will be project manager until the end of Phase III. She reports to both the NLA and the National Library of New Zealand. The new World 1 Executive Director will report to the Director-General of the NLA and will be a member of the World 1 board and the corporate management group. Coordination Activities. The NLA is reviewing its coordination activities, including the Distributed National Collection Office and the National Preservation Office. The Director-General will chair the review and will invite comment from key players inside and outside the library community, with a view to completing it by the end of 1996. The NLA is talking to ACLIS and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) about a broad ranging review of information services industries in Australia. Gift subscriptions. C.Steele reported that the NLA had cancelled some gift serials, and asked that if the NLA had any mechanisms to redirect the donations to other libraries rather than returning them to the donor. E.Wainwright assured him that nothing significant had been rejected but that he was happy to explore the issue. (Action: NLA) Federal Government. E.Wainwright discussed the potential consequences of the election results on 2 March. He suggested that there may be significant room for CAUL in changes to DEET and in the strengthening of the HEC and the ARC, but that previously allocated funds may not be forthcoming. He added that seven different Coalition policy statements were relevant to the National Library and that it would be advisable for CAUL to examine all statements for areas of relevance. 201. Statistics. a) Electronic statistics. A paper was circulated with the agenda recommending that: i) a first trial of electronic statistics collection be conducted at the same time as the annual collection of CAUL statistics by CAVAL in April, 1996; and, ii) the trial questions be those included in the agenda paper. b) A paper on the collection of 1995 CAUL statistics for AARL was circulated with the agenda. Some amendments to the collection of 1995 data were recommended.

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 5 c) H.Hayes reported that feedback on the various recent reports on CAUL statistics indicated a review of all the information collected so far from CAUL members. She will summarise all previous questions and responses for circulation to CAUL with the CAUSTICS specification document by Ian Dobson, for comment by CAUL members by the end of April. (Action: DC,HH) M.Cameron suggested revisiting why specific data was being collected. She believes that data on titles is more valuable than data on volumes, and does not approve of CAUSTICS counting monograph, serials and non-book materials in three different ways. She questioned why it was necessary to count staff in HEW breakdowns. 202. Performance Indicators. Neil McLean tabled a report of a Macquarie University Library Customer satisfaction survey 15-21 May 1995. A paper by Alex Byrne, expanding on the paper presented to CAUL 2/95, was circulated with the agenda. The recommendations (following) were discussed. a) Costing methodologies. That the approach described be endorsed and that members nominate staff members to participate in a working party to develop costing methodologies. b) Market Penetration Indicator. That the approach described be endorsed and the invitations be issued to libraries and library schools to develop the proposed indicator. c) CAVAL Reference Interest Group Measures. That any developmental costs required [for the preparation of key measures by the CRIG] be approved by the Executive and that publication and distribution should be handled in similar fashion to the first three indicators. d) Adequacy of Retrieval Software and/or Data. That members invite the systems librarians group to develop an evaluative instrument for information retrieval software. V.Williamson recommended that, with the large range of measuring instruments available, it may be better to resource the road-testing of some, rather than commissioning new ones. M.Cameron suggested that CAUL encourage the development of the CAVAL indicators. M.McPherson suggested that the evaluation of retrieval software would be more appropriate for a research project than for a performance indicator. E.Lim reported that Monash University Library was developing a manual of costings partly as a result of compulsory competitive tendering in Victoria. E.Gow suggested that it was too early to evaluate the indicators properly, but that they could be fine- tuned as they were being used. H.Hayes recommended that CAUL acknowledge the strengths of the indicators, agree to use them, and correct any weaknesses. Several CAUL members questioned how the previously published CAUL Performance Indicators had been used, by how many institutions, and how well they had worked; how CAUL could track their use: whether any had been evaluated in a systematic way. J.Shipp suggested an article on the use of the indicators, showing evidence of inter-library cooperation. M.McPherson recommended that the Northern Territory University Library listserv on quality should be used for such discussions, and that CAUL members should encourage appropriate staff to subscribe. (Action: CAUL) Six institutions had used at least one of the indicators. It was agreed that overall the indicators were useful, although there are some problems with the instructions for use. N.Radford commented that the user satisfaction indicator had the potential to be interpreted as commentary on the overall service rather than the success of the specific visit. It was agreed that  CAUL evaluate the Monash University Library costing methodology which is under development; (Action: EL,AB)  the market penetration indicator be built into the customer satisfaction indicator; (Action: AB)  the CAVAL Reference Interest Group be asked for more concrete performance indicators with a view to moving forward with additional indicators; (Action: AB) and

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 6  research on the adequacy of retrieval software be incorporated into the Database Access Working Group’s brief. (Action: Database Access Working Group)  CAUL be surveyed about the current indicators, and asked for suggestions on refinement of them. (Action: AB) It was questioned whether CAUL should participate in CAUDIT’s best practice project. V.Williamson suggested that it be integrated with statistics and performance indicators. (Action: Executive) 203. National Priority (Reserve) Fund. J.Shipp reported that he had discussed the NPRF funding with DEET officers and they were of the opinion that funding would still be available, but that there may be some delay in its release. The AVCC will advance any funds required until the DEET money comes through. He added that the Improved Information Infrastructure Program and the Database Access Program had advanced funds to the Electronic Publishing Program. a) Information Infrastructure A confidential briefing for CAUL members on the JEDDS project was circulated with the agenda. A.Byrne reported that funding had been committed to JEDDS and to some projects, but that no further projects would be initiated. He added that it was fortunate to have Kerry Blinco as the JEDDS Project manager, and to have such good international cooperation. b) Database Access Minutes of the Working Group meeting of 30 January 1996, and the 1995 Annual Report were circulated with the agenda. J.Shipp reported that the program would fund a feasibility study for the document delivery administration project, but would otherwise focus on full-text for 1996. C.Steele added that the program would be evaluated. A formal request for bids will be issued. Marian Bate tabled a paper on financial modelling for decision making. It was agreed that the paper be referred to the Database Access Working Group. (Action: Database Access Working Group) It was recommended that CAUL negotiate a discount for site subscriptions to Britannica Online, and that it encourage the mounting of mirror sites in Australia. CAUL will be surveyed to determine the level of interest. (Action: DC,Database Access Working Group) N.McLean advised that the Current Contents contract with ISI and Ovid will expire in September. He added that the Ovid service charge had been artificially low because the server was funded by the NPRF, and that the charging level related directly to the number of members participating. There was some discussion about whether any efficiencies might be obtained by changing service providers or by splitting into two groups. A straw poll of Datasets Coordinators indicated a fairly even split of preference between Ovid and SilverPlatter software, and that price was relevant only when the gap was significant. N.McLean recommended that CAUL extends the contract for 2 years providing that a comparable price differential is available. CAUL members agreed. (Action: Database Access Working Group) c) Electronic Publishing E.Gow reported that a symposium will be held in Sydney on 30 May, with presentations from those who had received grants under the program. Commissioned papers will be updated and published. An additional paper on the impact overseas of Australian scholarship will be commissioned. The annual report will be circulated to CAUL. (Action: EG) d) CASMAC-Compliant Library Specifications An extract of the minutes of the Working Group meeting of 9 February 1996, and the 1995 Annual Report was circulated with the agenda. D.Parker reported that Neil Harrington (formerly of the University of Melbourne) had been contracted to do the data definition project. He is currently doing other CASMAC-related work, but will need some guidance with library systems. He will visit the libraries of some of the working group members and will be talking to systems librarians. The project should be finished by mid-year. There will be a later workshop on the potential for using extra information available from the various CASMAC modules, and planning for the future. CAUL members had been asked to send copies of their library system tender documents to the CAUL Office.

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 7 e) Future projects. J.Shipp has revised a document recently circulated to CAUL, to make it suitable for presentation to government, DEET, HEC, etc. It focuses on the future projects for Australian university libraries, and the funding requirements. A.Byrne suggested that it was time to repeat the process that led to Libraries at the AARNET crossroads, a seminal document which has fed into a lot of worthwhile projects. C.Steele agreed, but suggested waiting for J.Shipp’s document and the recommendations from the IDA Project. J.Shipp confirmed that this model had worked for electronic reserve. He will circulate the document after Easter. (Action: JS) 204. CAUL incorporation. John Shipp reported that discussions with the AVCC Executive Director had confirmed that the AVCC is unlikely to support CAUL’s incorporation. He advised that four of the five current members of the Executive Committee were indemnified by their own institution while representing their universities at CAUL. As the potential financial liability was a key motivation for incorporation, it now seemed less important to proceed with incorporation. 205. CAUL finances. The audit report for the 1995 CAUL accounts, the 1996 CAUL budget and a proposal for an amendment to the CAUL constitution were circulated with the agenda. It was recommended: a) That CAUL members approve the audited statement of accounts for 1995. J.Shipp noted that the audit report was qualified because the accounts had been audited by a different accountant in the previous year. The statement was accepted by CAUL members. b) That CAUL members note the CAUL budget for 1996. J.Shipp highlighted the expected balance at the end of 1996, and noted that funds would therefore be available for some project work. The budget was noted by CAUL members. c) That CAUL members agree to amend the constitution to increase the number of members on the Executive Committee from two to three; CAUL members agreed to this proposal. d) that CAUL members agree to amend the constitution so that CAUL may borrow funds, or obtain credit, only to the limit of the account balance, or of the account balance minus outstanding liabilities and commitments to the end of the current financial year, whichever is the lower amount. The auditing controls were noted and CAUL members agreed to the proposed amendment. (Action: DC) 206. CAUL Office. A report by the Executive Officer was circulated with the agenda. M.Cameron commented on the value of having an Executive Officer, and that she found the web site very useful. J.Shipp added that the web site was seen as a useful site for higher education. 207. Professional Development. A draft program for senior managers and leadership, prepared by AIMA was circulated with the agenda. J.Shipp reported that he had discussed with AIMA the number of university librarian vacancies likely over the next few years. S.O’Connor commented that the strategic direction of AIMA was to focus on leadership. The Magellan Institute program had plans to bring in attendees from other sectors such as arts and telecommunications. CAUL members agreed that this was a good step. The program would add speakers from outside, emphasising image, partnership, exemplars from Australian industry. It was essentially for library directors, but it was suggested that it could be useful for people moving through converged structures eg members of CAUDIT. H.Hayes commented that it was more important at this time to focus on deputies. CAUL members agreed, with V.Williamson further suggesting that CAUL members determine what content they would like in such a program, then call for tenders. (Action: Executive) H.Hayes also suggested sending deputies to spend time with other university librarians, including those outside Australia, if necessary with some payment to the host institution. 208. CAUL strategic plan & future issues. The latest version of the CAUL Strategic Plan was circulated with the agenda. H.Hayes advised that included actions were taken from minutes of previous CAUL meetings. A.Byrne suggested splitting into two documents, a strategic plan for public consumption, and an action plan to list specific tasks. CAUL members agreed with this approach. (Action: Executive)

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 8 N.McLean questioned whether the outcomes from the ACLIS Document Delivery Summit had been included. 4.3 was now completed. A.Bundy suggested adding strategies to deal with the learning implications of, and the resource implications of, internationalisation. The Executive recommended: that CAUL identifies the expertise lacking in the Australian university library community, and each year, brings a relevant expert to Australia. It is proposed that any CAUL member could nominate such experts, and prepare a paper supporting their nomination. D.Schauder suggested adopting a Rotary model of having after dinner speaker for CAUL dinners. J.Shipp suggested including Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors. 209. CAUL Annual Report 1995. A first draft of the report was circulated with the agenda. Suggestions included adding information about Educational Lending Right. 210. CAUL meeting 2/96. The meeting is intended to be held in conjunction with the National Scholarly Communications Forum, which will include CAUL, CAUDIT, Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors (Information Services), and focus on the future of libraries and information technology issues. It was important to bring together people with ideas rather than solutions. Sir Brian Follett is unable to attend and Prof Brian Fender (Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding Council for England) and Prof Arbuthnott (Chairman, Joint Information Systems Committee) are being sought. D.Schauder suggested inviting those outside the Anglo-American community eg Sweden, with experience with privatisation of universities, access of the community to university library services, being on the edge of Europe in way that Australia is on the edge of Asia. N.Radford suggested involving New Zealand on a more regular and more formal basis.

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 9 211. Coordination for library and information services. H.Hayes outlined a plan to examine the information industries to determine future directions and what support those directions would require. ACLIS and the NLA had agreed to go ahead, and were awaiting a decision from ALIA. Papers will be circulated for information following the next ACLIS Executive meeting. (Action: ACLIS) 212. Information services. A.Sale advised that he and C.Page-Hanify had agreed to arrange a meeting of DVCs (Information Services) later this year in Sydney. One item of discussion would be their various portfolios, and which might appropriately be appended in the future. (Action: AS,CP-H) J.Shipp suggested having a one-day seminar with CAUDIT and the DVCs/PVCs (Information Services) on convergence, adding that there hadn’t been enough time for discussion at the CAUL seminar on the previous day. M.Cameron suggested waiting another year, when there had been more experience. J.Schmidt added that the contrary view was important. M.Cameron suggested looking at success factors, eg does it depend on individuals. D.Parker suggested focussing on outcomes rather than structures. J.Shipp asked for suggestions for topics for a potential meeting with CAUDIT. AARNet and CASMAC were suggested. M.McPherson suggested that with the regionalisation of networks and with an increasing number of distance students that it would be valuable to have a planning day covering policy development, the roll-out of networks and the delivery of services, covering a 5-10 year time frame. K.Schmude suggested electronic publishing. A.Sale suggested a distributed national collection of mirror sites. G.Austen will test some of these suggestions with the Queensland joint CAUL/CAUDIT meeting on 20 March. (Action: GA) 213. National reciprocal borrowing R.Choate suggested a national reciprocal borrowing scheme, with appropriate remuneration to the host libraries. D.Schauder supported the concept, but not if it included exchange of monies. R.Choate will draft a proposal. (Action: RC) 214. Death of Brian Southwell. It was resolved that a formal letter of condolence would be sent to Brian Southwell’s widow. (Action: JS) It was remembered that he was a continuing supporter of public libraries, and had been responsible for donations to VUT through his contacts with potential supporters. He was president of Friends of Libraries, Australia. The meeting closed at 12:45pm on 8th March. dmc020496

CAUL Meeting 1/96 - 7-8 March 1996 - Minutes 10