News

              ~r.=..
tl.'", ~"uth Frunl Strt'et
CulumhulJ. Ohiu 4:.1215
('l] 4) ~fl:!- 70fi ]
~
OCLe (1&1>~.
~.. ..
OCC031982
AN OPEN LETTER TO OHIO LIBRARIES
November 1982 Vol. 240 No. 4
~)
Regarding State Library Board's Resource Sharing Plan
In February 1982. the State Library Board reviewed at a re~reat the Library and
Information Services to the Citizens of Ohio (LISCO) plan which was presented to them
in November 1981. The Board felt very confident that the LISCO plan was exceptionally
well-written and identified many of the points of concern and direction for further
library development.
One of the major concerns which the Board identified quickly within the plan was
that of resource sharing. both information and materials . along with the delivery
component. which cut across statewide responsibility. local responsibility. and the
role of the regional library systems.
~
,- In reviewing this document . the Board felt that this one item needed to be
looked at very carefully and required more information and documentation, detailing
what might be needed for funding to carry out any statewide resource sharing, communi­cation
and delivery system .
James E. Rush Associates, Inc. was hired to review what is happening within the
state in resource sharing, communication and delivery. where the strengths a r e within
the state , and how the current situation can be strengthened. The report was to
provide the Board with ideas of methods and costs to carry out that one segment of the
LISCO plan dealing with resource sharing , communication and delivery on a statewide
basis.
In July 1982,
Associates for study.
to develop a concept.
the State Library
and not as a final
Board accepted the
plan for the state.
report by James E. Rush
They used the documents
In September 1982 the State Library Board distributed a summary of the ideas and
concepts of the report. (It was not intended to be a summary of the total Rush
report . ) The summary included whatcould be done if the timing and the money were
available . Unfortunately. the summary was too sketchy and vague in some areas (it did
not adequately identify that the plan was building upon the existing strengths in the
state, such as the regional library systems, the On-Line Computer Library Center. Inc .
[OCLC] database , and the experience garnered through OHIONET) . It was too detailed in
regards to the timetable , which showed what could be done under the best of circum-t:
ances.
(1
'r'