2019-09-19 & 20 Meeting notes COLD & ADs

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.

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

d. Bundle includes set number of journal titles and so-called gratis list of UC subscribed titles that includes more titles than our subscription.

2. Discussion 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.

Open

EAR (C. Caballero)

Committee has new members

Open

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.

Open

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.

Open

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

1000

Welcome & Introductions

Nicole Lawson & Suzanna Conrad

Associate Dean Workshop

1030

Tips for New ADs, such as conflict management, organizational structure changes, policies, balancing new duties

Marianne Foley

1100

AD roles in construction & renovation in regards to design, planning or working with architects or construction/facilities personnel; marketing or communications to the campus; and library personnel actions/issues/service or program planning or change management?

Tim Strawn

1130

LSS Career Pathways

Cheryl May

noon

Lunch

1300

Building an AD Network Across the CSU

Marwin Britto

1400

Breakout Session I

Tenure-track peer mentoring programs (Marla Peppers)

Consortia technology purchasing (Christina Mune)

1430

Breakout Session II

Materials budget oversight (Marla Peppers)

Experience with Program Review (TBD)

1500

Round Robin: What Keeps You Up at Night

Tim Strawn

1545

Closing

Lawson & Conrad

0830-0900

Farewell to Gerry

All

Resolution for Gerry Hanley

Open

0900-1020

CERPE Report

AKautzman & Claire Dygert

CERPE Report breakdown
Dygert walked COLD through the rationale behind the recommendation to keep licensing centralized through the Chancellor’s Office, but also noted the issues that need addressing (communication, clarification of roles, and planning). She addressed the need to reimagine EAR and how COLD engages with SDLC. Dygert also addressed the opt-in program, noting that the Libraries funded two of the positions. Dygert also had done a program review of the cost-share formulas and had observations and recommendations. She noted that the recent change to make administrative fees transparent was a good step forward and recommended COLD reevaluate the SDLC allocation formulas.

Fabbi noted that the 2014 formula was developed prior to the current generation of library deans, with 18 new deans on board since then. Discussion ensured about the five packages that have the 50/30/20 formula and Choy clarified that for other products, the vendors set the per-campus pricing.

9:40 AM – There was a brief break in the CERPE discussion while Provost Michael Spagna welcomed COLD to CSUDH. The provost noted that the Library had often been designated as the swing surge space and this practice needed to be mitigated, and that it is also important to support library collections and hire more library faculty. He noted the importance of ScholarWorks. Provost Spagna noted also that he had just returned from the provosts’ meeting and that at this time we in the CSU have “the wind at our backs.” The governor regards us favorably. Provost Spagna concluded with comments about the importance of lifelong learning and asked us to consider how we “tether people to our institutions” for the career changes they will make in their lives, and praised Provost Inch for his advocacy for libraries.

9:48 AM – CERPE discussion resumed on the issue of the opt-in database allocations. It became evident that most deans were unaware how and when the formulas were applied. As a side issue, it was noted that usage, one of the allocation factors, has become increasingly problematic. Dygert advised that COLD focus on the allocation formulas over the next year.

Regarding database pricing, Dygert said that while our price increases tend to be in line, she cautioned COLD that vendors often operate in a “divide and conquer” mode and that COLD should work closely with Choy to ensure we are getting the best pricing possible.

Dysert discussed subscription memos for opt-in programs. She recommended libraries be more strategic in their approach to opt-in products. Dygert reviewed practices of other consortia, which appear to have more “centralized” approaches to opt-in resources.

Other recommendations included COLD working with EAR on licensing guidelines and SDLC forging a relationship with CO legal counsel.

At 10:05 am Dygert opened a discussion about reimagining EAR. Stover asked her to weigh in on the state of e-resource licensing and the pricing issue. Dygert observed that as a profession we do not train our librarians how to negotiate. She noted “I don’t think the trend will change until we change.” Important for campuses to have commitments to open access.

There was some conversation about EAR structure.

1030-noon

UC/CSU Collections Discussion

Guests: Guenter Waibel CDL & Jeff MacKie-Mason UCB

Conversation on Negotiating w/Scholarly Journal Publishers, UC Slide Deck

Open Access Tipping Point (OATIP) Public Affirmation

Jeff Mackie-Mason led the first half of the presentation.

· Elsevier: no contract since 12/31/18

· Negotiations terminated 2/28/19

· Direct access terminated 7/10/19 – notes that they had perpetual rights to most content prior to 2019

They believe this is a success:

· Elsevier has reached publish-and-read agreements with Norway, Hungary, and Carnegie Mellon

· 17 N. American statements of support, from 41 universities

· August OATIP workshop for 17 universities and consortia, with public affirmation

Project Transform

· Negotiate and implement a set of transformative agreements with publishers of scholarly journals.

· Have signed agreements with Cambridge and JMIR, Wiley, Springer Nature, ACM, and PLOS.

· 55 transformative agreements have been signed worldwide · (For more on transformative agreements, see https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/negotiating-with-scholarly-journal-publishers-a-toolkit/an-introductory-guide-to-the-uc-model-transformative-agreement/ )

· Impact: impact on Library is low. Slide presented UC ILL/Doc requests over 6 weeks only 1400 out of 108,000 “expected downloads” led to ILL requests – 1.5% yield. Scholarship indicates most scholars find documents they want through various OA means. Burden on the library is very low.

· Elsevier requests have been 10% of all ILL – a “very modest” burden.

· Many titles have low interest: the 80/20 rule applies.

Gunter Waibel led the next section of the presentation, to help clarify what is meant by transformative agreements.

UC spends $40m on subscriptions (state-funded). UC authors are spending $10m on APCs (grant-funded). This is double-dipping. The price increases are an unhealthy trajectory.

The alternative is a transformative OA agreement.

Off-setting and multi-payer: off-setting means sub fees decrease as OA publishing fees decrease; multi-payer means

In the UC model, authors have the option to opt out. Otherwise, the Library is there to help cover the cost of APCs as needed. “No author left behind.” Library financial transactions are handled in the aggregate each quarter.

· The more grants participate, the more money is brought into the system. So grants are an important part of the process. Right now 20% of their authors use grants.

o Good for the academy – good for faculty – good for library budgets – good for the publishing ecosystem.

· UC is on a journey from an unmanaged, escalating OA economy to transitional OA agreements and eventually to a primarily-OA world.

UC has many other related strategies.

Transformative agreements are negotiated shoulder-by-shoulder with campus and faculty participation – a marked change from traditional agreements, which are negotiated by CDL.

Jeff Mackie-Mason led the final part of the presentation, focusing on the role of faculty in strategy development. The UC academic senate committed to a Declaration in April 2018, while the President and Provost advisory group issued a call to action in June 2018.

Keeping faculty informed – there are 12k faculty in the UC system.

· Faculty Senate meetings

· Town Halls

· Broadcast emails

· Website banners and portal page with FAQs

· Public media

Worked hard to message that this initiative needed broad buy-in. Noted that the media love this initiative because it’s easy to communicate the idea that public research should be available to all.

Faculty as partners in execution: three of the negotiations team are tenured faculty members, including chair and vice chair of the library faculty committee. Faculty were empowered as communicators. They sequenced communications for “termination day” (2/28/19) and they came from (in order) Faculty Senate, President’s office, UC-wide email, and then UC Libraries website.

The vendor went after CDL, but the faculty had already been primed that this wasn’t something CDL was doing to the faculty.

· What are your hopes and dreams for your publisher negotiations?

· How can we help?

· How can we work together?

Highlights from questions and answers:

· Communications: negotiated with campus communications teams. Presidents and communications teams embraced this effort and appreciated that the UC was getting good press (after some incidents over the years).

· APC cost analysis: Elsevier acknowledged that the UC analysis of APCs was largely correct. They have an analyst to help with those analyses.

· Question about impact of APC payments: UC acknowledged paying APCs for all subscriptions would be more than what they are paying for subscriptions.

· Research funding for APCs: gradual shift to research funding covering APCs. (Average APC cost is $2,586) Grants pay remainder of APC after subvention when acknowledged by an article.

· Important to understand going into negotiation that it doesn’t cost vendors more to publish OA.

· Society publishers: they too have profit margins (in the high 30 percentile). But UC isn’t as unhappy about paying surplus to societies because at least the societies are providing services to their communities.

· Mackie-Mason noted that a transformative agreement achieves two objectives: lower costs, and open access.

· UC editors: important to communicate early to journal editors and to treat them as a specific group to communicate with. In the UC, a number of editors have resigned from

Elsevier, and there have also been petitions via change.org and MoveOn about boycotting submissions and editorial work for Elsevier.

· Highest-level support: the UC President meets annually with the UC council of librarians, so the sell at that level was “very easy.” [Editorial aside, to be deleted: Imagine…] Very strong support from her. Has a public blog post in support of this.

· We shared our status in COLD.

· Jeff noted, “We [COLD] have power, if we’re willing to take short-term costs.”

· Wiley has been “swooping in” to do publish-and-read contracts for former Elsevier customers.

· If we at all serious about this, we need to agree we can walk away. Big player, used to being pushed around. Tries to ignore requests.

· There are stages to a walk-away, and the customer is in charge. The vendor may assume we’re not serious. However, they can’t actually turn us off on a dime, and they are scared of the faculty.

The talk concluded at 12 noon, and over lunch, Provost Inch, via phone, offered his strategic insights. Access and equity are key issues in the CSU. COLD noted that it would be important to have support at all levels of the CSU, locally and centrally. There was discussion about requesting input from provosts, but there was also discussion about ensuring that there is buy-in on an OA initiative. It was suggested that unified campus support is an important prerequisite to central support. Need to do the infrastructure support first. Need to get in front of our senates to thank them.

Noon

Provost Call

Provost Ed Inch

Conversation re: moving COLD forward in its relationship with CO & Campuses