Page Comparison

12-1300

Lunch

• Deans & Associate Deans

1300-1330

Introduction

All

1330-1400

Elsevier Negotiations

M. Van Hoeck, C. Oberlander

1) Negotiations w/Elsevier on Science Direct contract

2) Communication w/faculty on individual CSU campuses

1.Elsevier Negotiations (M. Van Hoeck, C. Oberlander)

a. Small group delegated to be a SWOT team is working on the negotiations includes Emily Chan (SJSU), Eddie Choy, Cyril Oberlander and Michele Van Hoeck. We looked only at the Science Direct Contract.

b. Recommends more purposeful and shared communication to campuses highlighting annual increases and 20% increase in Elsevier profits since 2015.

c. CSUs downloaded 3,331,172 last year at rate of approximately $1.16 per article.

d. 2010-2019 CSU authors published 15,632 articles.e. Bundle includes set number of journal titles and so-called gratis list of UC subscribed titles that includes more titles than our subscription.

f2. In absence of data on APCs did not address this topic with Elsevier.

g. In Zoom meeting Elsevier shared a slide that indicated annual APCs of $216,000 in addition to subscription charge of $3.5 M.

h. Negotiation Timeline

i. 8/8/19 requested usage and APC data and said no negotiation until get

ii. 8/26/19 - met but Elsevier did not supply responses

iii. 9/6/19 - went to CO and ignored other request

iv. 9/12/19 - PPT slides with proposal

i. Elsevier submitted *soft* proposal of 3.75% increase 2020, 4% increase 2021 and 4.25% in 2022.

j. CSU position: inflation is unsustainable given our budgets. CSU Faculty should retain control of own work. Publicly funded scholarships should be available to the public with no APCs to faculty from subscribing institutions. We need to be able to do text-mining. A multi-year contract with high inflation rates is not acceptable

i. Plan A specifies:

(1) A limit on the annual increase.

(2) Faculty retention of copyright

(3) No APCs for faculty from participating institutions.

(4) Language that permits text mining.

(5) One year contract.

ii. Plan B - no Big Deal.

(1) Post-termination access to subscribed title

(2) Additional considerations ;

(a) Title disaggregation and cooperative lending strategy across campuses.

(b) Smaller bundle

(c) Alternative discovery and article supply: increases pressure on ILL and pay-per-view supply of Elsevier, but also increases visibility of diverse and open access publishers in marketplace.

k. Campus Communications Strategies:

i. CSU Libraries website post needed at end of September.

ii. Campus presentations September - November.

l. Committee sees key question as focusing on whether with continued access to Elsevier titles dated 2019 and older faculty and students would support a tougher negotiating stance in response to 1) 4.5% or more annual increases, and 2) APCs on top of subscription expense.

m. Recommendations

i. Campus forums needed to communicate about negotiations, get faculty and student input, expand awareness of issues beyond subscription: APCs, transformative licenses, copyright, etc.

ii. Still don’t have real data but how important is it to get hard data. APCs don’t seem a large proportion, but is there a symbolic or political value in making that an issue.

2. Discussion of Presentation.

a. Mark Stover

i. Commendations for excellent report that establishes principles while seeking guidance on level of flexibility.

ii. Bargaining position should insist on no APCs because while it may not be a top priority symbolically and rhetorically it makes a statement.

iii. Should insist on a one-year contract unless there Elsevier makes an exceptional offer.

iv. Both UC and SUNY encountered Elsevier obstinacy on APCs and the SUNY negotiating team will pursue a zero APCs contract.

v. Campuses need to know about hardball tactics, and we need to decide if we walk away what our responses will be on our campuses. With Wiley we didn’t have a consensus and that turned out okay but you can subscribe to individual journals

b. Leslie believes CO would back deans.

c. Some misgivings about walking away from resources students and faculty need.

d. Amy commented that COLD has duty to protect taxpayer interests and push back on increasing costs.

e. ACTION ITEMS

i. Share slides and information with notations.

iiDiscussion of Presentation.

a. Mark Stover

i. Commendations for excellent report that establishes principles while seeking guidance.

e. ACTION ITEMS

i. Create a communications team to support SWOT negotiating efforts.

1400-1430

Short update on the CSU Statewide Academic Senate proposal for an

Open Access Policy

M. Stover

Tipping Point Conversation

1.M. Stover: Short update on the CSU Statewide Academic Senate proposal for an Open Access Policy

a. Statewide Senate had approved a green open access policy for the system.

b. CO apparently reluctant to be driving force behind Green OA Policy for system. So appears it will be a one-sided effort and desirable to get the mandate to deposit their work in a repository from fellow-faculty.

c. Linked to Elsevier - deposition in repository reduces dependence on publications.

d. Comments on meeting on the Transformative Agreement.

i. 32 people representing 16 different institutions - all R1s. We were invited because we are from California.

ii. Joined by AVP of Research from SFS who was skeptical at first about reaching such an agreement in the CSUs, but by the end of the two days he was convinced that it was a feasible strategy

iii. Transformative agreement is not so much about a subscription so faculty and students can read but making faculty-authored publications open access and also having subscriptions to read all the material.

1430-1445

Break

1445-1600

Committee Updates

Chairs

Scholarworks (D. Walker) EXTRA 10 minutes for governance discussion

a.Scholarworks (D. Walker) EXTRA 10 minutes for governance discussion

i. Operationally focused on ScholarWorks

ii. Similar to ULMS in organization

(1) Chair selected by COLD

(2) COLD liaison

(3) Working groups

(a) Metadata

(b) Digital archives

(4) Term life. Suggested consider having chairs for perhaps three years.

iii. Stephanie Brasley moves COLD accept governance structure for digital reposiory committee. Mark Stover second. Approved.

iv. Discussion about relationship between ScholarWorks governance and COLD. Jen Fabbi notes that making chair a member of COLD Exec would require change in COLD charter.

v. Carlos Rodriguez moves that COLD propose governance structure with the COLD liaison being a Dean and serving as a member of COLD exec. Seconded by Emily Bonney.

(1) Jen Fabbi observed COLD has an interest in keeping COLD Exec from getting larger and larger and needs to figure out a way to get our leadership within the libraries to lead the committees without having additional deans. Chairs can report to Exec during meetings.

(2) Further discussion on the issue and the difficulty of relying on deans to serve as liaisons and the fact that discussion at COLD meetings does not require the liaison be part if Exec. Perhaps make chair of ScholComm serve as liaison to the ScholarWorks group. Need to take action of some kind now so can move forward with ScholarWorks.

(3) Carlos withdraws his motion.

vi. Patrick Newell move ScholComm chair become ScholarWorks liaison and that David Walker would report out on most of the governance work. Seconded by Tracy Eliot. Passed by 22.

b. New ScholarWorks is up and running.

i. Campuses can begin uploading now, and have begun the migration from DBase

ii. Want to do feature development which would include the critical features that are on the feature development slide.

iii. Moving forward with an RFP to get a vendor who does feature development and provides second-tier support. Up to $120K allocated by COLD. October reviewed by implementation team; November award contract; December start work

iv. Data migration - Sacrament was first in line, San Marcos and Chico next.

v. Staffing - Kevin now working as a contractor with data migration and tier-one support, and in the spring will rehire the position and may reduce level of library background required and have a hiring committee that includes one or two campus staff.

vi. Can continue to use DSpace

vii. Now there is a proposal for a Digital Archives System being created by a community of practice. This system would be bigger in scope and have beefier requirements because of videos. Report is on Confluence.

EAR (C. Caballero)

Committee has new members

ScholCom (P. Newell)

a.He will send out an email requesting feedback

b. Need to add a couple of questions and only 18 of the 23 campuses responded

c. P. 27 has quick take-aways. All of the data uses pretty much the same scale

i. Campuses were interested in digital publishing but not in most of the work involved with publishing. Biggest benefits to digital publishing are seen as going to students. Dana Oswina on OJS and Heather Cribbs at Bakersfield

ii. Green IR Archiving Practices - no one is interested because takes repository away from campus.

iii. Open Access still seen primarily as a library issue. But statewide needs more advocacy at the local level. ScholComm will prepare materials and suggests north state campuses could get Mark Bilby to make presentations.

iv. ORCID - Elizabeth Blackwood from CI and Mark Bilby will be working on this. Know it’s a unique identifier; most librarians seem very uninterested in this but offices of research are very interested in this. Will be pulling together resources. The Ohio State University has a complete set of resource including two-day orientation - forum - what are best practices that might amplify this

(1) Tracy: RSCA program to get .2/3 WTU reassigned time and will require ORCID to be in the program - over 30% of SJSU using ORCID

(2) Adriana: SLO fully supports cost of ORCID and library tasked with being advocate and preparing educational materials.

Student Success Committee (T. Elliott)

a.Need participating campuses to check in with your representative because they need your advocacy to work with the IRB for Research office.

b. Few more institutional data have been submitted and will have to leave out those who do not submit collected data soon.

c. Bakersfield has provided all the data we requested. Numbers look off because doesn’t include Fall.

STIM (R. Rodriguez)

a.Met at CSUNPalooza and a zoom meeting on 12 September.

b. The palooza event was a great start. Reviewed project list and which would get carried over vs. those that would be new.

i. Still looking at fee payment issue.

ii. Survey of vendor relationships.

iii. Study on group study rooms in CSU libraries: equipment, administration, overall management.

iv. Policies for maker spaces in the CSU.

v. Survey of digitization labs both procedures and equipment.

vi. Survey faculty profile software and moved over to ScholComm

ULMS (J. Wenzler)

a.After 2 ½ months the steering committee has completed the governance structure with seven functional committees.

b. All committees engaged in important work.

c. CSUN meeting very successful - demonstrated how many people are involved.

i. 120 participants.

ii. Important in giving employees an opportunity to talk.

d. Film group not just talking about loan rules but also how access services people are in the front lines.

e. Discussion with orbis cascade re contract

f. Rapido - five campuses developing this

g. What is a policy vs a procedure

h. Most useful thing is to come back to COLD and have a discussion about how ULMS is a strategic asset - give leadership information about the functional committees - where to take it and what are highest priorities

i. General discussion about CSUNPalooza.

i. Major committees used to have annual in person meetings but beginning to move away from this. Only EAR still has this practice.

ii. Some concern about having significant numbers of staff out at a single time for STIM, ULMS, ScholComm while noting that there is a savings in resources and important networking activities.

iii. Difficult to deal with built-in inequities at choosing some people and not others. Perhaps need to prioritize this in preparing budgets.

1600-1700

Deans Only

a.Rethinking position on how charter is set up and will sent to Executive Committee. Chairs of committee require different expertise and may not want deans in those positions.

b. Communication plan for Elsevier -

i. Michele: SWOT team still needs feedback. Please send.

ii. UC had more preparation time and also need to consider the impact on Interlibrary Loan.

iii. The absolute deadline is 31 December.

iv. Michele emphasizes that Plan A is what SWOT teams wants and Jen notes we would retain access for awhile although may not be the same as we were able to manage with Wiley where we could arrange a deal through SCELC.-

v. Karen : As we bargain we need to go to the faculty. Every sign of preparation makes position our look stronger

vi. Amy: The CO has failed us because people watching SDLC should have been paying attention.

vii. Agreement that we have more work to do. No action on Patrick’s proposal for a monthly meeting of the deans on this issue and also no definitive action on proposals for laying the groundwork although Tracy Eliot and Emily Bonney volunteered to start getting the word out.

viii. Agreement that we were closer than we had been and better prepared for meeting with UC.

2. Jen and Amy on visit to CO

a. Visit with Leslie to bring her up to speed and hoped to see Loren Blanchard for 15 minutes. In the end he was not available.

b. Plan for discussion and key points.

i. They have 12 open positions. None of employees agreed to move to Long Beach, so we need to be strategic about what we think might be a priority. Clearly we need support for ScholarWorks because it has been a problem for too long.

ii. Also pushed on the notion that there are potential issues with both ScholarWorks and ULMS being managed by contractors because we are not getting positions filled as quickly as we can. Brandon and Kevin will leave as soon as they get a job as they should.

c. Patrick: one of the things that came up was that there may be opportunities. We should get the ask together soon for the DAMS position.

d. Jen: we should consider some type of PD for the system and support as a new COLD initiative. Should this include work already integrated into the ULMS? Wouldn’t this make sense to bring to CO in terms of support. Deans could support position for a new initiative.

e. Further discussion about the process surrounding the attempted relocation of the information technology team and the Affordable Learning Solutions.

f. Budget

i. Still no clarity from CO about our budget and availability of funds to hire consultant or subsidize professional development.

ii. Confirmed that ECC is baseline addition.

iii. Chief of staff Nathan Evans was excited about student success piece so we need to wok on him.

g. Clear that in discussions we have with statewide academic senate and intellectual property there will be pressure from CO for faculty to provide copyright which we should not do.

h. Raised the fact that library faculty are not included in metric for tenure density and graduation initiative.

i. Amy: Beginning of a conversation. Apparent that if we can’t bring it back to student success it wont get any attention. Blanchard already clear that he does not see any link between libraries and student success.

j. National search for position Leslie holds but not clear whether it will be reconfigured.

3. Public Service Announcement re OJS. Amy: just found out but when Kevin set this up discovered you can’t do this from the sandbox so you need to go straight to the live version.

4. Patrick informed deans that 16 people are registered for copyright session DH and 14 for SJSU. Deans encouraged to make sure their teams are registered.

1700+

Tour/Dinner