Item | Notes |
|---|
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1eY2sGi8RrcFMdTa3Z8wiRRBtKsC3IwhzVR-oPbYiBg0/edit?usp=sharing |
Expense Structure | do the three cost centers of support and innovation, licensing, and infrastructure make sense to you? does the description of what is included in each cost center seem appropriate? Are there any cost centers, or types of expenses that you don’t see reflected in the slide? Are there changes in where any type of expense should be located between the cost centers?
|
Service Portfolios | Does the concept of service portfolios make sense to you? Voting membership has been defined as a set of services, benefits, and memberships that are only available through full Marmot membership. Is there anything in this list that you think doesn’t belong? Anything that should be included but isn’t? Do you have any reservations about the more formal establishment of an Associate Membership fee, or the definition of associate membership as having a la carte access to certain Marmot services? Do you have any thoughts, concerns, revisions to suggest for the service portfolios? Resource sharing IT Services Statistics & assessment services Preservation services Consultations and special projects Computer equipment acquisitions
|
Data Types discussion | https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScLzx4rVVX2ahejeeS-kvjaHHPcflG008x8tStb4WEFAoFLHQ/viewform?usp=sf_link https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ckr9Zbw-pe56tR_f1giHyUS7pO-1ZSx6XZkAPGA8xLw/edit?usp=sharing What stands out to you in the straw poll results? physical collection size does not seem like an appropriate measure for scalability for resort towns, there may be more registered borrowers than LSA circulation seems to be fair; the more my circulation goes up the more I benefit from being in the consortium many of the other data types are decisions made at the local level and don’t necessarily work fairly Jamie argues against the use of formulae, because people forget what the formula is quickly. keeping data directly attributable to a reflection of demand. could mean that we need one model for publics and a separate for academics that is equitable
Why did the highest ranked item get selected? expenditures per and circ per make more sense than other items collection use is a reflection of demand per capita evens things out across the consortium using registered borrowers can be variable depending on how clean libraries keep their patron database
Why did the lowest ranked items get ranked that way? Are there other data elements you can think of that might be more appropriate? Are there data elements that might be appropriate only for specific service portfolios? What are they?
|
Fee types discussion | |
| |
Next steps | February: Synthesize focus group data February/Spring: Identify most preferred types of data for sizing; build out more detailed models using this type of data for different types and sizes of library June: Presentation at Council for final round of feedback Summer: Approval by Marmot Executive Board September: Member notifications January 2025: Effective date
|