TLA Resource Sharing Task Force: Final Report

By Rhoda Goldberg

The TLA Resource Sharing Task Force (RSTF) was charged with "evaluating the advantages and
disadvantages of resource sharing across the State of Texas with particular emphasis in group purchase and training with online databases for all types of libraries." As part of this charge, the RSTF explored various strategies for the 79^th Legislative Session and activities that could be undertaken to facilitate statewide resource sharing outside of the legislative process. Fundamental to this task, the RSTF worked with a broad cross section of the library stakeholders to better understand what library stakeholders envisioned for the future of resource sharing and which needs required immediate or long-term strategies.

Background

At the end of the last legislative session, the school library resource-sharing program, the Texas Library Connection, lost all funding. No state funds are available now to support the union catalog or to provide public school access to databases. While the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has agreed to contract with Autographics for continuation of the union catalog, school database access is limited to those independent school districts (ISDs) that have licensed databases on their own. A number of ISDs have contracted with Education Service Center 20 for database access at a cost of $1.29 per student.

TexShare also lost funding during the last legislative session. All academic libraries and all public libraries serving populations over 12,000 will pay a fee to help supplement the remaining TexShare funds to pay for database subscriptions that were to be renewed in June 2004. Even with these fees, TexShare database funding is insufficient to cover the costs for StatRef and HeritageQuest. These databases will be maintained for another year because of funding made possible through a Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) directed pledge drive among TexShare members and some agency supplemental funds directed to cover the remaining balance. All TexShare libraries will be assessed a fee for database subscriptions that will be renewed in the upcoming year. After May 2006 there will be no state funds remaining unless the 79^th Legislature appropriates money for the continuation of TexShare.

Library stakeholders weigh in

As noted, an aspect of the RSTF's work was to understand "the will" of stakeholders. Through public discussions, the RSTF learned that many in the library community believe there should be one statewide database program that includes public, academic, and school libraries. Libraries of clinical medicine were also mentioned as a constituency in need of statewide access. On the whole, library stakeholders acknowledge that one program is easier to explain and justify to both elected officials and constituents.

Legislation will be needed to bring public school libraries (indeed, any new constituency) into TexShare at such time when TexShare is sufficiently robust to encompass a much larger membership. Such action will necessitate the need for additional funding to cover licensing agreements and administration related to school library access. The political and financial climate makes this an effort requiring more than one legislative session to accomplish.

The State Library sponsored a two-day planning session on statewide resource sharing to facilitate broad stakeholder discussion and to gather input as the agency begins its planning process. The chief priorities emerging from that discussion were the inclusion of K-12 school libraries in TexShare and increased flexibility in funding and administration of statewide databases, including the potential for contracting out components of the TexShare program such as TexSelect or functions related to fee administration. An outreach program to all libraries that effectively explains all of the TexShare programs and the cost benefits of these programs was also listed as a major priority. Attendees also voiced a strong desire for increased flexibility in the choices of databases, possibly a broad core with an added cafeteria-style choice of non-core databases. Another priority is the strengthening of marketing efforts for explaining TexShare and unifying all programs under the TexShare "umbrella" term.

Components needed in future resource sharing plans

The RSTF examined several issues related to the long-term structure of funding statewide databases and the means to allow that statewide structure to serve both global and local needs. While the key assignment before the RSTF centered on immediate legislative strategies regarding resource sharing, that discussion related directly to fees (as a subset of overall funding) and flexibility (as a subset of what responsibility ­ if any ­ the state would bear for continued access).

Fees are a fact of life

There is general agreement that libraries will have to pay some portion of the cost for any statewide databases. Already, a large number of ISDs are paying for database access, as are all public and academic libraries. Additionally, many libraries report a need for resources beyond the "core" level of databases available through TexShare. And, libraries are willing to form consortial relationships to negotiate for that enhanced access. Local and statewide consortia offer the most economical way for libraries to license databases by allowing more libraries to join because of the price breaks. All types of libraries must begin recognizing that resource sharing will be a financial partnership at all levels. Any long-term strategies must include a fee structure that will speak to individual libraries' commitment to and investment in statewide resource sharing.

Additional flexibility in TexShare is needed

TSLAC is authorized to collect approximately $1.5 million dollars in fees. Due to this cap, any other funds libraries would like to invest in databases administered through TexShare must be applied through a purchasing system outside the agency. For example, funds that schools are currently spending could not be used for TexShare databases because of this restriction (in addition to the statutory limitation on TexShare eligibility). Through flexible administration of TexShare, however, other potential mechanisms can be crafted to allow willing institutions to purchase additional database access. TSLAC or some other body (such as a 501(c) 3) acting as an agent of libraries and/or the agency could negotiate such added access with vendors and could collect the needed fees.

The RSTF proposed that library stakeholders continue to explore issues of administrative flexibility within the TexShare structure. In response to this recommendation, a small work group to focus on these on-going issues, which do not require legislative changes, will be created. The group will work closely with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission and will recommend updates in policy to the TexShare Advisory Board and the State Library.

Policy strategies

Since, at this time, the course of action for TexShare is related partially to school access of electronic content, a concrete strategy will depend somewhat on actions taken (if any) by another special legislative session on school finance, which may occur within the next few months. The TLA task force has concentrated on sketching out three primary strategies that will allow us to position libraries favorably in whatever political environment we must make our case.

1. Pursue school access through TSLAC

One possible strategy is to have a bill introduced during the session that would allow TSLAC to act as purchasing agent for databases for school libraries along with academic and public libraries. This bill would seek permission for TSLAC to collect fees from schools and would request funding to subsidize basic school library access. If the State Legislature does consider such action, TSLAC administrative and staffing issues, as well as state purchasing requirements, will also have to be addressed to make the proposal workable.

The Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) has already taken a leadership role in examining the range of options that might be explored. TSLAC has provided the RSTF with the costs associated with licensing school access to core TexShare databases. Over the coming months, TSLAC will play a fundamental role in crafting the beginning of a long-term solution.

2. Pursue potential initiative through TEA

Another opportunity that may help statewide resource sharing is through an independent effort being explored. Under the charge of Representative Kent Grusendorf, an eLearning Initiative Steering Committee was formed with the administrative support of TEA officials to examine strategies for expanding educational technology capabilities in the state. The Steering Committee was asked to make recommendations about educational technology infrastructure, programs, and content. This concept includes planning and delivery of curriculum, instruction, and extended enrichment materials and the infrastructure that would be needed to use educational technology effectively. One discussion point emerging from this work was an interest in amending the Texas Educational Code to allow flexibility in purchasing materials with various state funding sources. Such action would carry the possibility of making funding for databases that was previously designated for specific instructional items more flexible. It is expected that the state Public Education Committee will take action on some of the group's recommendations.

3.  Continue support for TexShare

Additionally, all types of libraries have expressed a strong commitment to ensure that TexShare resources are not diminished for any participating group and that, fundamental to any action, efforts to maintain TexShare at least at its current level must be continued.

Conclusion

Because of the increasing importance of databases, it is necessary that we concentrate on the best way to achieve statewide access. While the ultimate goal is a single unified and well-funding program, we can begin several steps to help us work toward statewide access in both the short and long term. As a community, we must also understand that this work will likely take several years to accomplish and that we may need to develop several complementary passageways that together will create statewide access over the next few years.

Some other factors shaping resource sharing include the potential role of the eLearning Initiative, which may form at least part of the answer for schools. Also, stakeholders are unified in their desire to see TexShare as a statewide brand for resource sharing, because it is known by the legislature. Reality also dictates that, when TexShare is unable to meet local needs, libraries must be able to look at independent consortia and must be able to use any available resources to meet the local needs of their publics.

The RSTF will submit its recommendations officially to TLA's Legislative Committee for consideration at annual assembly in July. At that time, the Legislative Committee will determine which legislative action items to bring before Council for the upcoming 2005 Texas Legislative Session.

Special thanks go out to all of the members of the task force who gave of their time and helped with the often perplexing and frustrating task of trying to categorize an interlocking set of amorphous and changing circumstances. The discussions garnered through this process have paved the road to consensus and actionable plans. While much work and agreement must yet be achieved, the overwhelming message to the RSTF over the last few months is that no one in the state is willing to step back from effecting a statewide mechanism for resource sharing.   

Rhoda Goldberg is deputy director of Harris County Library and is the chair of the TLA Resource Sharing Task Force.