2019-03-01 Meeting notes

9:00

Announcements

Open

@Jen Fabbi

Join Zoom Meeting

https://csusm.zoom.us/j/972789461

9:15

2019-2020 COLD Nomination slate (vote)

ULMS Governance Steering Committee term

@Curt Asher (Unlicensed)

Chair: Amy Kautzman

Past Chair: Jen Fabbi

Vice Chair: Carlos Rodriguez

Secretary: Emily Bonney

EAR Chair: Cesar Cabellero

EAR Vice Chair: Del Hornbuckle

Scholarly Communications Chair: Patrick Newell

Scholarly Communications Vice Chair: Mark Stover

STIM Chair: Ron Rodriguez

STIM Vice Chair: Stephanie Brasley

Student Success Chair: Tracy Elliot

Student Success Vice Chair: Frank Wojcik

ULMS: John Wenzler (plus, discussion about two-year term moving forward)

17 yes votes for current slate of nominations

ULMS Governance Steering Committee term – (Carlos Rodriguez). Two years in the role gives continuity. Vice Chair was added for continuity. John Wexler is an excellent candidate. The steering committee is reviewing the committee’s structure and agree to update charter to reflect this role. Will assess the governance structure and charter and discuss at the May meeting.

10:00

ScholarWorks SWAT Team

Please find at the link below the SWAT Team report.

https://library.calstate.edu/docs/swat-report-2019.pdf

Although the overall report is chock full of useful information, for those short on time, I would direct you specifically to the three-page Executive Summary as a useful overview of the task force’s work and recommendations.

For the meeting on March 1, I would recommend that COLD discuss and take a vote on each of the five recommendations in the Executive Summary.

_______

As mentioned in our earlier report (Recommendation #3), the SWAT team has been working on an initial scope of content recommendation for ScholarWorks and the proposed Digital Collections and Archives service.

That report is available for your consideration here:

https://library.calstate.edu/docs/swat-scope-2019.pdf

Additionally, COLD Exec asked me to provide my own thoughts around a possible governance structure for ScholarWorks (Recommendation #2).

Basically, I would recommend that ScholCom and the ScholarWorks community of practice merge together. The latter is actually well organized and highly motivated, and already has interest groups focused on specific, needed areas for ScholarWorks, including:

Publishing

Metadata

Faculty profiles

Digital archives

ScholCom can evolve into the steering committee for that new governance structure. Going forward, the chairs of each ScholarWorks working group, together with a few at-large folks, can compose the steering committee. Kevin and I can serve ex-officio, as well.

That resulting structure would look a lot more like the ULMS governance.

STIM would be formally divested of any ScholarWorks concerns, which has been the de facto situation this year anyway.

The SWAT Team can serve as a bridge governance group, helping to set out some of the initial decisions and communication around the repository service going forward, until the new structure can be put in place.

@David Walker

Scholarworks SWAT Team (Dave Walker)

1) Lengthy report but the executive summary highlights the work

2) The team has the benefit of 9 surveyed consortia –SUNY and CUNY are similar to the CSU

· One instance instead of 23 instances is cheaper and simpler. Having things in one bucket allows people the ability to branch off and see things. Also ther is the advantage of a shared system

· We need to create a shared decision output of scholarly content as opposed to historical content

· Need to prioritize all the systems then staff appropriately

Questions:

Clarification of what should be included and not included? This is a gray area
Who will pay for the new positions?
Have we moved any campuses content from DSpace to Samvera? Yes, 10 campuses so far
What expertise is missing to get us into one instance? No one person is the issue but all of the content and additional systems maxes out the expertise and shifting to a system wide repository
Will the extra position permanent or temporary? The extra position keeps things going and gives the project continuity.

Motion to vote on Recommendation #1 from the executive summary

Will the content still be available in OneSearch after its been harvested?
Once we move to Primo the content can be exposed in other places with no additional costs

16 Yes and 2 abstentions So a yes vote to moving forward with recommendation #1

Motion to vote to approve the scope that’s presented to us by the SWAT Team on Recommendation #3 from the executive summary

Discussion: Finding aids are a form of scholarship so maybe they don’t need to be included in the
institutional repository.

17 yes and no abstentions so motion carries

ScholarWorks Governance
There are many overlapping areas and their research shows that the successful consortia that do really well have strong governance structures. Perhaps beefing up the SCHOLCOM committee. We need some action.
David suggested that the SWAT team may be the bridge to provide the structure needed to move projects along. Even start thinking about using ADs to add to some of the structural gaps.

Having a ScholarWorks community of practice is important and brings the committee into a formal structure.

Motion: COLD assign STIM the task of proposing a ScholarWorks governance structure

Report #2 (ScholarWorks)
Philosophy seems to be driving decisions about where content should go

Break

11:15

CSU+ Presentation

@Mallory DeBartolo (Unlicensed) @Chris Lee (Unlicensed)

Open

CSU + Data (Comparing activity from one year to the next) Mallory

· Fall 2017-2018 CSU+ and Illiad

· CSU+ Philosophy

o We should seamlessly provide access

o Get the right thing to the patron as quickly as possible (speed and accuracy)

Motion to accept as written with the understanding that we would add assessment in the document as a guiding principle. Karen will work with Mallory to add assessment as the guiding principles

Discussion around the importance of assessment and evidence-based
(refer to Mallory’s spreadsheet)

12:15

Break

1:00

Committee Updates

· STIM (Karen)

· Student Success (Tracy)

· ULMS Steering Committee (Carlos)

· EAR (Michele)

· Scholarly Communication (Adriana)

Student Success (Tracy)

Everybody is ready to collect data and will be using spring to practice the process and be ready for fall.
IRB approval is the next step and there will be coding to conceal any personal info

STIM (Karen)
There is discussion of a possible joint conference. There may be some money for professional development.

ULMS (Carlos)

1) Will continue to meet monthly.
A lot of interest in creating a deans’ dashboard so the discussion is what type of data and what would be most useful to include. For example, lots of question about library space.
Hope to use a free version of Tableau to get a sense of what’s useful.

2)Discussing policies and decision-making structures for the ULMS steering committee
and going to recommend some standardizations. Focused on the organizational functions of the Committee.

3) 2014 SCOPM Report
ULMS will be looking at the recommendations from that document

4) Revisiting the ULMS governance structure (its size and effectiveness)
Recommendations for additional Ex Libris products but another committee is charged with strictly technical areas. Not only looking at size but nomination selections criteria.
Functional committee members tend to be staff from campuses with a
level of expertise and is this sustainable.

A shared approach is more sustainable than having someone doing work as a work assignment. Giving people opportunities but not changing the structure limits opportunities.

ScholComm (Adriana)
Copyright website is up but currently offline for review by the CO
Planning educational materials to support access to OER so might send a survey to get a sense of
what to focus on.
Very likely this group will have a modified focus to determine how it will move forward
Thinking about a communities of practice since we do have healthy ones and we need to access them as we move forward with initiatives.

EAR (Michele)
March 13, EAR will have its in person meeting which will include recommended cuts to the ECC
The JSTOR ebook pilot has been very successful. Lots of chapter reviews so the trigger has it and regularly purchasing ebooks for campuses
Asked EAR to plan for a consensus which will then be send to COLD
Decision plan:
Cost per use since last year
EBSCO analysis

These cuts will be difficult, they are a problem. We are not cutting fat.
WESTLAW and reducing the EBSCO package

1:45

Advocacy retreat follow up (Irene Herold will join)

Open

@Cyril

Stakeholders, being mindful of their intentions.

We have been focused on data and not the content. Opportunity for a unified multi-message approach.

May-June may be the best time as its the time when budget decisions are made.
Understanding the problem and complexity of erosion; continually a problem of erosion of campuses

Perception of local to system-wide

We do have a place for a static website.
Can we set up an FAQ of the week (Jen and Michele)

Proposed time is to have this ready for National Library Week
What is the audience but let’s try and make it look local

Deans who have student testimonials and photos please send to Tracy and Jen by March 11 as a first round. Focus on equity and student success.

Money should be centrally located. Current process is to give campuses the money and then the administration determines how to distribute it. We want to make sure that the allocation at the start is part of the message. Maybe this message is for the president and provost.

2:30

Break

2:45

Budget (Cost Recovery and preparing for 2019-20)

Draft Charge for COLD E-Resource Purchasing Exploratory Task Force (CERPE)

Open

Open

@Jen Fabbi

@Amy Kautzman

@gerry Hanley

Goal is to have this resolved by April

Cost Recovery Model

Start with stabilization for now then longer term plan moving forward

Plan # 1: cost recovery plans are separated from the ULMS and LDC
The CO is responsible for centralized staffing

Cost recovery needs can be divided among campuses

Motion that we adopt the first model (cost recovery for SDLC positions)

18 yes and 1 no and no abstentions
Motion to agree on J cost recovery for next year
12 yes and 1 no and 6 abstentions

Task force charge (Amy)
Are we using our collective muscle to have more leverage in negotiating better deals. Suggestion to hire a consultant to assist us

Volunteers to serve on task force: Tracy, Karen, Patrick M., Del, Emily and Amy

Full slate of new officers’ vote:

19 yes

SWAT Discussion

Mark recommended to remove his motion, stating that it is flawed.

Motion to create an implementation team to include SWAT and other members nominated by SWAT
19 yes and zero nos
Agree upon a date and form it ASAP

Supporting an additional staff person discussion will be pushed to May meeting at SJSU

One-Time Funding
Postpone TIPASA, Assess, ScholCom
Request to purchase Tableau
EAR committee would like to complete the assessment project
Hiring a consultant to help the Task Force figuring out how to manage SDLC funding

Keep Lib-IT and add honorarium for Copyright trainer (Kyle Courtney)

4:00

Deans Only

Discussion of paying for a position
6 campuses using BePress: which system should we really be looking at; developers were never asked what we should be doing. Not against a system with constant failure we have to invest locally and what their resources can bare. Nothing is comparable with BePress

Reminder to reserve hotel reservations for SJSU meeting (Tracy)

5:00

Adjourn