Proposal for the Development of Consortial Entities in the State of Pacifica

Introduction

Without the documentation of some basic assumptions and fundamental goals, it would not be possible to design a consortial structure, (or structures), for the libraries of Pacifica. As hypothetical analyst and designer, I was able to define my own assumptions and goals. In a real setting, one individual would be very unlikely to wield such power. More likely, groups of individuals, representing the multitude of library organizations, would arrive at their goals through arduous collaborative effort, or goals would be imposed by external funding sources or governmental agencies. The liberty to make these decisions facilitates a much more rapid design process than could be anticipated in reality. My assumptions and goals are documented below.

Assumptions

• As assigned designer, I have the authority to set overall purposes and goals for all consortial structures proposed.
• 1,500 words are not really adequate to develop a complete, comprehensive, and long-term consortium plan for Pacifica. The steps outlined in this paper provide a viable beginning, but more extensive analysis would be necessary to achieve a fully developed plan.

Goals

• To build upon viable existing organizational structures.
• To make efficient use of existing library resources.
• To become more cost effective in the acquisition of new and electronic resources, through consolidated purchasing.
• To begin the alignment of strategic goals, and to consolidate political and financial lobbying power.

The steps outlined in this proposal do not result in a single consortium for Pacifica. Rather, they outline a process by which the individual libraries can begin to align their interests and goals, and achieve some financial benefits.  They establish a foundation of relationships upon which more extensive future collaboration can be based. With these qualifications, I offer the following recommendations.

The C3P

The community colleges do not have the strongest library resources in the state (five have no libraries at all), however, they do have advantages that make them an excellent group to begin the Pacifica consortial effort. These advantages include:

• Community colleges comprise the most unified, and structured Pacifica library organization. Though not currently called a consortium, they have fundamentally functioned as one, albeit, a limited one, through the Office of Community Colleges (OCC).
• Beyond simply being organized, their directors are unified in purpose, with common staff, resource goals, and lobbying plans.
• All 30 community colleges share a single system. While they are not currently satisfied with the system, their common dissatisfaction unites them further. It means that they will have common system needs in the future and would significantly benefit from consolidated purchasing power.
• With increasing enrollment and specific resource goals, community colleges present an attractive candidate for state funding.

The first step in developing a community college consortium is to formalize the existing OCC group into a legal consortial entity and define its purposes. These activities can occur during regular OCC meetings of the library directors. Initially, and perhaps permanently, membership in this consortium will be limited to Pacifica community colleges.

This consortium can be called the Community College Consortium of Pacifica (CCCP or “C3P”) and it will be governed by a representative from each of its member colleges. For practical reasons, the library directors should probably continue as representatives. They have established relationships and have previously proven effective in their efforts. The consortium’s purpose would be to negotiate, contract, purchase and lobby on behalf of C3P members. Subgroups to address each of these functions, as well as a strategic planning sub-group should be established, and each must be invested with appropriate authority by the full body. Sub-groups can be elected or voluntary, as determined by the C3P. The dedicated OCC staff, as well as, “loaned staff” from member colleges can continue to support day-to-day operations.

Since the State is the primary funding source for community colleges, there may be legislative sanctions required. If so it will be necessary for the C3P to solicit and obtain those sanctions. Though they have a common funding source, the level of need will vary from college to college, so the C3P will not operate as a single budgetary entity, but rather will function as a clearinghouse for any financial transactions.

Some of the immediate activities of the C3P might be:

• The acquisition and implementation of a new system and catalog for the state community colleges. This would entail the collaborative preparation of a Request for Information (RFI). The request should invite information on replacement of systems for community colleges state-wide, as well as a new catalog. The RFI should also include a request for cost estimates to be used for soliciting state funding. (Formal cost quotations will be solicited once a budget is allocated.) This effort should be coordinated by a contracting sub-group of the C3P and the existing OCC staff.
• Investigate the long-term feasibility of affiliating with VAUA (see below) and implementing Vendor A’s system state-wide.
• The C3P lobbying sub-group should begin informal efforts with state legislators. This preliminary effort lays the groundwork for a formal budgetary request of significant size. Its goal should be to garner early legislative support, and allow legislators to anticipate and plan for future C3P funding. At this stage, lobbying should present the C3P as a fiscally responsible entity whose goal is to achieve cost effectiveness and value for the public, which increasingly depends on community colleges to meet their educational needs.
• Investigate shared purchasing of electronic resources and databases.
• Creation or expansion of inter-library loan operations to strengthen the resources of member colleges.
• Seek affiliation with ICOLC.

VAUA

For the five public universities and ten private colleges currently using Vendor A, an alliance to consolidate and coordinate negotiations would be mutually advantageous. To this purpose, the Vendor A User Alliance, VAUA could be established. The rationale and advantages for VAUA include:

• All of the institutions using Vendor A are experiencing financial challenges.
• A common vendor link already exists between these institutions.
• Affiliate status would be voluntary
• Cost savings could be achieved through group contract negotiation.
• An affiliation would allow the institutions to retain autonomy while reaping financial benefits.
• Institutions could be phased into participation as their contracts come up for renewal.
• Establishment of cooperative relationships between institutions using a common system would pave the way for more extensive resource sharing in the future. This kind of resource sharing would mitigate the increasing cost of serials and other online resources.
• Minimal governance would be required since this would be a single-purpose affiliation.

VAUA would essentially begin as a “buying club”. If the affiliation proves financially beneficial enough, a State-wide coordinator could be cooperatively funded. Until that time, coordination could be managed by staff at a single institution, and a coordination fee assessed to each participant institution.

Each institution would continue to maintain a separate contract and payment arrangement with Vendor A, however pricing would be negotiated and established by VAUA.

RPLC

LSTA funds available through the Pacifica State Library (PSL) provide the impetus for creation of the Rural Public Library Consortium (RPLC). As a collaborative venture, assembled specifically to apply for the LSTA funds, the RPLC would not necessarily have an extended life expectancy, though it could expand in scope if additional purposes were identified. Some of the reasons for creation of the RPLC include:

·        Rural patrons constitute an under-served Pacifica population.

·        Acquisition and installation of basic internet and database technology would enhance rural access significantly.

·        Pacifica’s LSTA Plan favors public libraries and innovative collaborative ventures, while discouraging requests for recurring costs.

·        The technology needs of rural libraries present the type of concise, request objective favored by the LSTA.

·        Participation in the RPLC could be voluntary.

·        This single purpose project “consortium” can provide rural libraries an avenue for establishing future collaborations.

·        These libraries probably have very little political clout individually, but may increase their influence if they consolidate their efforts.

Though minimally staffed, it would probably be necessary for rural libraries to temporarily volunteer staff to collaborate on preparing the LSTA request. However, the application should include funding for one or two FTEs to coordinate on-site implementation of funded technology.

Library Licensing Cooperative (LLC)

The two groups dedicated to licensing for Pacifica’s libraries are the Pacifica K12 System (PKS), which serves Pacifica’s K-12 school systems, and the Pacifica Statewide Database Licensing Group (PSDLG), which operates under the auspices of the Pacifica State Library. Though they focus on different types of licensing, they perform similar functions. An alliance that can offer multiple benefits should be negotiated between these two groups.  The purpose of the alliance would be three-fold:

·        To share knowledge and information in the area of licensing.

·        To achieve cost savings by joint licensing ventures.

·        To consolidate and make more effective use of lobbying efforts.

There are a number of reasons why creation of this cooperative is viable:

·        Both groups are funded by governmental agencies, so lobbying strategies can be easily aligned.

·        Some overlap in service may already exist; so process efficiencies can be realized.

·        Funding for the PSDLG is not allocated beyond this year, so their activities, regardless of their success, are in jeopardy. They must take some immediate action in order to remain in existence.

·        The groups contain complementary, skill sets – PKS focusing on software licensing, and PSDLG on database licensing. Each could benefit from the expertise of the other.

·        This cooperative would provide an ideal niche for management of filtering technology (however odious to library professionals), that is favored by Pacifica’s state legislature. Lobbying efforts could focus on this argument when soliciting funding.

·        Joint lobbying can also solicit any necessary legislative sanctions that are required to create the cooperative.

To a significant degree this cooperative is contingent on extended funding for the PSDLG. Without it, there is little incentive for PKS to participate, unless they receive increased funds and can expand their own scope. However, assuming that last-ditch lobbying efforts are successful and the LLC does survive, it would function best in the short-term, if each group retains responsibility for their current area of expertise. The LLC can conduct and compile needs assessments across the entities they serve to identify places where consolidation of licensing can occur. Negotiation and management of those agreements can then be delegated to the appropriate group. Consolidation of budgets would probably not be appealing to PKS unless funding for the PSDLG is stabilized.

Conclusion

As noted in the introduction, these recommendations do not result in a single tidy consortium for Pacifica. They do, however, develop alliances and meet the goals I established at the outset.

·        They build new and innovative alliances that capitalize on the existing organizations.

·        They make effective use of existing skills and resources.

·        They achieve cost benefits through consolidated acquisition and licensing, and

·        They begin the process of aligning goals and efforts.

It must be reiterated that this report is a very cursory analysis. Recommendations are based on limited information; a more extensive evaluation would be warranted in a real scenario.