Here is part of the message I received.

“CLA leaders have been concerned about non-functioning round tables for some time, and we have tried to “jump start” those that are not meeting the minimal requirements that we have set for CLA round tables. All round tables were notified in Nov. 2005 that they must annually identify leaders, and produce at least one product-an active list serve, an article for the weblog, or a program at the conference or at another time. When we reviewed the activity of the round tables prior to the recent CLA Conference, we found that the Trustees and Commissioners round table has not submitted weblog submissions and has not done any programming at the conference or outside of the conference. Also, the round table listserve has been inactive.

If this round table does not meet the minimal standards of activity by April 1, 2007, the CLA Assembly will have no choice but to vote to disband this group. Even if this round table is disbanded, members will have an opportunity to participate in talk tables in this interest area at the annual conference. We would also welcome suggestions for integrating this interest area in other parts of the organization.

If you are interested in seeing this round table continue, we urge you to take action immediately-volunteer to lead activities, begin planning a program for the conference, or post questions or comments on your listserve. You were subscribed to your list-the address is trustees@lists.cla-net.org for posting.

We have greatly appreciated all of the volunteer efforts that members have contributed and continue to give, and we are happy to receive any comments or suggestions you have regarding this subject.

Sincerely,

Margaret Miles, CLA 2006 President and Margaret Donnellan Todd, CLA 2007 President”

If any librarians or other interested CLA members want to get involved please go to trustees@lists.cla-net.org and join. Apparently no one showed up to the table at the last conference either.

Deirdre

August 26, 2005

Deadline for Bills with Fiscal Impact Reached on Thursday
TO: CLA MEMBERS/ SYSTEMS/ NETWORK CONTACTS

FROM: Mike Dillon, Lobbyist; Christina Dillon, Lobbyist

RE: NEWS FROM THE CAPITOL

SENATE AND ASSEMBLY “HOLD” TWO BIG LIBRARY BILLS DUE TO COST PRESSURES AND POLICY CONCERNS

Thursday afternoon, the Senate Appropriations Committee and Assembly Appropriations Committee met to address their significant list of “suspense file” items. As you will recall, the so-called “suspense file” is a method by which both fiscal committees in each house automatically hold bills with a dollar value in excess of $150,000 so that each bill may be prioritized on their fiscal and policy merit. Then, on one single day, all fiscal bills are dispensed with and are either passed out of committee and sent to the Floor for vote, or held due to cost or policy concerns (ultimately rendering the bill “dead” for the year.) The “suspense file” process is nerve-wracking for lobbyists and legislators, as it is highly secretive, and one does not know until the minute the bill is announced whether or not it is going to be passed to the Floor or if it is headed to the “suspense” graveyard.

Yesterday, two bills that are being closely monitored by the CLA Legislative Committee, chaired by Mark Smith, were held on the “suspense file.” Specifically, here are some of the details about the two bills held in committee yesterday:

SB 682-SIMITIAN: “THE IDENTITY INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2005″
“The bill requires that certain security measures be implemented into state and local government-issued identification documents that incorporate Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology, with certain specified exceptions, and for three years, prohibits the use of RFID in four classes of government documents including: 1) drivers licenses, 2) ID cards issued to K-12 students, 3) government-issued medical benefit cards, and 4) library cards issued by a public library.” (Source: Assembly Appropriations analysis)

Earlier in the year, we previously reported that our office received a call from the Senate Office of Research who was conducting confidential research on the use of RFID tags in library cards. When we polled the CLA Legislative Committee, they indicated that while the books and other materials at the library may contain RFID tags, the actual library cards have bar codes or another identifier, not RFID chips. We later received confirmation that it was Senator Simitian who commissioned the inquiry at Senate Office of Research. As many of you know, Senator Simitian has long been one of CLA’s biggest supporters, and we believe he was trying to best determine how much libraries would be impacted by the measure in advance of SB 682 being introduced. A few days later we attended a comprehensive briefing by the sponsors of his bill, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They explained the bill was prompted by a situation at a school in Northern California where students were asked to wear a badge containing an RFID tag, while on campus, to track their attendance at the school. Scanners were placed above doorways, etc. Parents objected to the invasive badges and the campus quickly disbanded the program. In April, the bill had two substantive hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but no organized opposition was present at either hearing, which surprised us. The bill then passed the Senate Floor and headed over to the Assembly.

In the meantime, the CLA Legislative Team had established an excellent Task Force, consisting of Chair, Mark Smith (Riverside County Library System), Jackie Griffin of the Berkeley Public Library, and Kathleen Smith at the Fresno Public Library. They had significant concerns that because the RFID technology is “young yet, it would be detrimental to pass a piece of prohibitive legislation so early in the game,” and requested that CLA submit language to Senator Simitian calling for an amendment to allow for future “hybrid” or permissive options. The public library could offer 1) a barcode system, or, 2) if the library offered an RFID card system and a barcode system, the patron could choose their style of card, using an opt-in approach, and would sign a waiver of informed consent if they chose the RFID model. Unfortunately, the author and the sponsor rejected our language and the prohibition for public library card usage remained in the bill.

The bill faced a much more difficult time in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. We spent a great deal of time speaking with committee staff regarding our concerns, and ultimately the thorough 11 page committee analysis posed the question: “The Committee may wish to explore with the author the possibility of permitting all educational institutions and libraries to use RFID technology with security protections.” Despite the consultant’s argument, the author was resistant to exempting public libraries from the bill, but agreed to exempt higher education, partially because the UC system, according to the analysis, “had already invested several million dollars into RFID technology for use on its campuses and in its libraries.” At this hearing, a large coalition of opponents turned out, representing various electronics groups, including the American Electronics Association, Oracle, Texas Instruments, etc. and even the state’s own Department of Consumer Affairs who is concerned with Homeland Security issues. At the end of the hearing, Chairman Dave Jones said, “I personally have concerns with limiting the technology and with the limiting of certain classifications of documents, but I know the author will continue to work with everyone.” The bill passed on a vote of 6 “ayes” (all Democrats) and 3 “noes” (all Republicans).

Subsequently, the Assembly Appropriations Committee identified costs to state and local agencies of several dollars per card and several hundred dollars per reader station for the new, enhanced systems and massive encryption requirements that would be required under this bill. Also, the Committee consultant identified an unusual potential cost brought about by the bill - civil actions. The consultant warns SB 682 could cause “potential unknown cost to the state or local agencies to defend against civil actions brought pursuant to alleged non-compliance” and “potential costs for adverse judgments against the state or local agencies in such actions.” In a surprise twist during Thursday’s Appropriation’s “suspense file” hearing, Assembly Appropriations Committee Chair, Judy Chu, announced that she would be holding “20 bills over as two-year bills. If you don’t hear a bill number called out, that means we are holding on to it until January.” SB 682-Simitian was one of the 20 bills held by the Committee, with the opportunity for it to be resurrected any time next year. However, the San Jose Mercury News is reporting that the Senator has stated that he would vow to “try to revive it before the Legislature adjourns for the year on Sept. 9.” The Senator would need to obtain a significant amount of rule waivers and obtain the blessing of Assembly and Senate Leadership to be able to move his bill before the end of session, which would be quite difficult.

AB 1388: RIDLEY-THOMAS: ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EDUCATION AND HEALTH ACCOUNT WITHIN THE CALIFORNIA TELECONNECT FUND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FUND

You may recall that several years ago there was a large surplus contained in the Teleconnect Fund, within the Public Utilities Commission Budget. As it was a tight Budget year during that session, the Budget Subcommittees and Budget Conference Committees voted to “borrow” $150 million from the Teleconnect Fund, as it appeared it was not being utilized and could assist the state in helping to balance the Budget. Since that time, a group of lobbyists (representing schools, libraries, and community based organizations), including CLA, have supported annual legislation that seeks to return some of the “loaned” money to the Teleconnect Fund. This year, AB 1388 by Assemblyman Mark Ridley-Thomas would direct the Public Utilities Commission to administer a grant program pertaining to telemedicine resources in urban and rural areas, and a grant program to “demonstrate the benefits of using the state’s telecommunications networks to deliver supplemental education services. Grants may be made to: (a) entities which deliver services to pupils in grades 6 through 12, and (b) public libraries.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee analysis noted that it “is difficult to estimate the potential cost pressures, because they would depend on the parameters of the grant programs created by the commission. Nevertheless, the costs could be millions of dollars annually through 2013, when the provisions of the bill sunset.” Perhaps, not surprisingly, the committee chose to hold the bill on its “suspense file” rendering the measure dead for the year.

Posted by claadmin at 04:54 PM
July 11, 2005
Governor Signs Budget - Protects PLF From Further Cuts
TO: CLA MEMBERS/ SYSTEMS/ NETWORK CONTACTS

FROM: Mike Dillon, Lobbyist; Christina Dillon, Lobbyist

RE: NEWS FROM THE CAPITOL

Before noon today, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the 2005-06 State Budget in the majestic rotunda of the State Capitol building, only 11 days past the constitutional deadline for passage of a budget. Under heavy security, and flanked by legislative leaders and Budget Chairs from the Assembly and Senate, the Governor signed the $90 billion (General Fund) Budget and subsequently released a list of reductions. We are pleased to report that Governor Schwarzenegger chose to protect the baseline for the Public Library Foundation (PLF) at $14.1 million and did not make any further reductions to the fund. You may recall that in his January version of the Budget, the Governor had proposed a $2.2 million reduction to the PLF, and we worked with the Budget Subcommittees to restore that funding in the May Revision Budget process. Today CLA can declare a small victory, and offer sincere thanks to the Governor for his willingness to protect library funding in the 2005-06 Budget. Ultimately, the Governor and his staff had a choice to accept the Budget subcommittee action and agree to the $2.2 million restoration for the PLF, reject the $2.2 million augmentation entirely and revert back to the Governor’s January Budget level, or make even further reductions to the PLF. Thus, with this Budget, the Governor and his staff made a conscientious decision to save the PLF from further reductions.

We would also like to report that the Budget signed today does not reflect any further cuts to any other library programs or State Library operations.

From the LibraryLaw blog

The time is NOW to fax your Senators and Congresspersons to support digitization projects
If you care about getting money to digitize library materials, send a fax or email to your Senators and Congresspersons right now, supporting DO-IT legislation, just introduced in the House and the Senate. DO-IT says that Congressional leaders will be reaching out to their Senate and House colleagues next week to get co-sponsors to House (HR-2512) and Senate (S. 1023) bills. Here are sample letters to House Representatives and to Senators. Actual examples are here 1, 2, 3.

If your reps are on the House Commerce Committee or the House Education and Workforce Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee or the Senate HELP Committee, they are especially important… click on the committee, and then your member to get contact info. Then do it - send your support for this legislation that will help fund library and education digital projects.

Congressman Ralph Regula of Ohio, a senior Republican appropriator and longtime DO IT champion, joined Ed Markey (D-MA) and Paul Gillmor (R-OH) to introduce HR-2512 on May 19th. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) joined Senators Dodd (D-CT), Snowe (R-ME) and Durbin (D-IL) in introducing S. 1023 on May 12th. These are folks to THANK!

Here’s quick background. More at Digitalpromise.org

Here are my comments, as policy analyst for CALTAC and based on my experience as a library law consultant:
http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2005/03/my_orphan_comme.html

Here are other folks’ comments:

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_03_20_fosblogarchive.html#a111184827860798869

Still more will soon be posted at the Copyright Office site - check here:
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/index.html

-Mary Minow