Call to Order: The initial LMS Implementation Steering Committee meeting of Thursday, January 24, convened at 10:15 a.m in the Student Union, Key West Room, University of Central Florida. The presiding member was Grady Morein (UNF). Members of the committee present included Barry Baker(UCF), Sherry Carrillo (FIU), Jim Corey (FCLA), Denise English (LSCC), Martha Hruska (UF), John Hein(UNF), Sheila Hiss (NFCC), Kristin Kubly (FCCJ), Richard Madaus (CCLA), Debra Sears (State Library, representing Barratt Wilkins), Colleen Thorburn (TCC), and Julia Woods (Broward CC). Kathy Hoeth (FGCU) was unable to attend. Guests were Ann Armbrister (CCLA), Diann Davis (CCLA), and Michelle Newberry (FCLA).

1. Introductions: All meeting participants were introduced and in keeping with the formal call for the meeting, it was stated that Grady Morein would lead the meeting until such time as the Committee Chair was decided.
2. Determine Leadership process
1. Chair: Following a brief discussion concerning the implications of a single chair or joint chair, it was decided to delay both the determination of the type of chair and the person(s) to fill this role until later in the meeting. The sense of the group was that a better overview of committee activity would aid in this process.
2. Minutes: CCLA volunteered to provide AISC staff support to take minutes, distribute committee materials, and serve as the committee archive. Richard Madaus volunteered to serve as minute taker for this meeting and assured the committee that CCLA staff would be present to perform these tasks for the next meeting.
3. Overview of the Contract provisions, timetable, etc.

Jim Corey and Richard Madaus provided brief overviews of the final contract negotiations and anticipated initial implementation activities.
4. Briefly review Role/Function of the Committee (see attached)

A short review and discussion of the document Implementation Steering Committee followed. This document was approved by the CCLA Executive Committee, the FCLA Advisory Board, and jointly supported by the Chancellors of the community college and university delivery systems before being submitted to the State Technology Office as part of funding proviso from the 2000-2001 legislative session. This document states:

The function of the Implementation Steering Committee would be to assess joint issues of implementation and to recommend policies and procedures related to broad areas requiring cooperation among all libraries, both university and community college. The Implementation Steering Committee would recommend working groups to address specific issues requiring deeper study or specialized knowledge within specific operational areas. It is assumed that the libraries of both the State University System and the Community College System agree to:

• Work together to maximize the benefits of resource sharing
• Use this joint committee process to address mutual issues

Additional discussion reinforced the opportunity for the State Library of Florida to participate as a full member of the AISC. Newberry distributed two documents drafted by Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU) librarians: Issues Requiring Collaboration between DCU Libraries and with CCLA, and Model Aleph Codes for SUS Libraries. They were presented as some of the early identified issues requiring consensus. Since the AISC had several organizational issues to discuss, no action was taken on these documents.

5. Discuss how the AISC will operate
1. How to identify issues requiring cooperation among all libraries

Discussion ensued concerning the variety of issues that the AISC will need to deal with. It was the sense of the group that issues would develop naturally through growing familiarity with the system gained through initial staff training experiences. The committee felt that both FCLA and CCLA staff would be identifying issues and that library staff would be encouraged to bring forward issues as they identified them. General consensus was that immediate work could probably begin in the area of indexing, as this will be critical to the interoperability across the two systems. The seamless union OPAC across the two systems was also noted as an area that would require considerable effort and should be considered for immediate committee work.
2. How to work together
1. What subcommittees/task forces might be needed

A number of module related groups will be necessary over time. However, the initial need is for the indexing and OPAC functional task forces.
2. Membership on subcommittees/task forces

After discussing various models the following functional task force architecture was agreed to. A model of three university, three community college, and one State Library representative will be utilized for each functional task force. In addition, a university AISC member and a community college AISC member will also be assigned to each task force in a liaison role. These liaisons will provide update reports to the AISC. CCLA and FCLA staff support and representation is also assumed for each functional task force as needed.
3. How will AISC/subcommittees/task forces develop consensus
1. Developing consensus related to joint Division of Colleges and Universities (DCU)/Community College System (CCS) issues

It was noted that consensus will require an awareness of three components that affect the configuration of the two Aleph systems: meeting the requirement of CCS libraries, meeting the requirements of DCU libraries and meeting the needs for the two systems to communicate effectively for OPAC searching and universal borrowing. The "three-legged stool" example was utilized as a metaphor for the nature of the agreement that will be needed in most cases for issues across the systems. To ensure the interoperability and the seamless nature of the system, appropriate concurrence on issues will be necessary in most cases.
2. Developing Consensus on issues particular to each delivery system

This area was noted as being the responsibility of each delivery system. However, the caution was noted that every effort must be made to insure that groups be aware that some issues may appear solely delivery system based, but have unrealized interoperability implications.
3. Importance of meeting and enforcing tight time frames

The nature of the already tight timetable was discussed. It was reinforced that the AISC and associated functional task forces must achieve quality work, but must also be mindful of the strong time commitment that will be required to achieve July 2003 library activation on the new system.
4. Meetings
1. Types of meetings for AISC & for subcommittees/task forces
1. Face-to-face
• How often

It was decided that the AISC will meet monthly as necessary.
• Where

The convenience of Orlando and the UCF Union meeting environment was noted and appreciated by the entire committee. Barry Baker offered this resource for the next and following meetings. The committee accepted.
2. Telephone conference calls
• How often

The importance of the initial activity being face-to-face was reinforced. Conference call meetings are anticipated, but the AISC will continue monthly face-to-face meetings as necessary.
6. Review each groups’ implementation process and time line
1. DCU – Phases

The libraries of the State University System will be activated on a phased basis due to the size of the databases and the numbers of staff to be trained. The initial phase, currently scheduled for July, 2003, will include UF, UNF, UWF, and FGCU. The second phase timing will be determined after greater familiarity with the system is achieved and the results of initial database loading can be determined.
2. CCS – Blocks

All libraries of the Community College System are anticipated to be activated during the summer of 2003. This single migration approach is due to the single database model being utilized. Actual timing will be determined after greater familiarity with the system is achieved and the results of initial database loading can be determined.
7. Begin exploring issues where consensus is needed.
1. Codes

Following discussion, it was determined that the codes and initial system level values could be best pursued by FCLA and CCLA staff working together. Recommendations for AISC approval are to be prepared for the next AISC meeting. Diann Davis of CCLA and Michele Newberry will be the joint leads for this activity. Additional CCLA and FCLA staff will be utilized as necessary.
2. Indexing

The need for a formal functional task force was agreed to. After discussion, additional membership provisos were outlined for this group. Since there is an intimate relationship between indexing and the OPAC display, it was agreed that there should be both Technical Services and User Services expertise on this group. The Indexing Task force will therefore consist of two Technical Service university library staff, one User Services university library staff, two Technical Service community college library staff, one User Services community college library staff, and a representative from the State Library. Each delivery system should select their representatives prior to the next meeting of the AISC. In addition, the AISC will select a representative from each delivery system to act in the liaison role as outlined in the standard working group design.
3. OPAC

The need for a functional task force was agreed to, with additional membership provisos outlined for this group. Since there is also an intimate relationship between indexing and the OPAC display it was agreed that there should be both Technical Services and User Services expertise on this group as well. The OPAC Task force will therefore consist of two User Service university library staff, one Technical Services university library staff, two User Service community college library staff, one Technical Services community college library staff, and a representative from the State Library. Each delivery system should select their representatives prior to the next meeting of the AISC. In addition, the AISC will select a representative from each delivery system to act in the liaison role as outlined in the standard working group design.
8. Selection of the Chair: Discussion resumed as to the role of the Chair for the AISC. It was decided that the AISC would be best served by a Co-Chair scenario. Julia Woods was chosen to represent the Community College System and Kathy Hoeth was selected to represent the State University System in Co-Chair roles. Issues remained, however, as to the ground rules and responsibilities for each Co-Chair. Julia and Kathy were directed by the AISC to meet and develop a document that outlines the procedural and ground rule activity for the Co-Chair role to best serve the AISC. This document is due at the next meeting.

Julia Woods took over as chair from Grady at this point and the entire AISC thanked Grady for his stewardship over the several-year procurement process.

Next Meeting: The next AISC meeting will be February 26, 2002, at UCF from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.