Draft Minutes Full COLD 5-6 December 2019

Owned by Emily Miller (Unlicensed)
Dec 20, 2019
10 min read
Draft Minutes COLD 5-6 December 2019

Present: Curt Asher, Emil Bonney, Stephanie Brasley, Eddie Choy, Tracy Elliott, Jen Fabbi, Emma Gibson, Amy Kautzmann, Leslie Kennedy, Debbie Masters, Patrick Newell, Cyril Oberlander, Adriana Popescu, Carlos Rodriguez, Karen Schneider, Mark Stover, Alicia Virtue, Michele Van Hoeck, David Walker, John Wenzler, Frank Wojcik,

Thursday 5 December 2019
! 1300-1330: Round Robin / Points of Pride
" Predominant issue was search for new provost on multiple campuses.
! 1330-1415: Elsevier Negotiations (M. Van Hoeck, C. Oberlander)
" The Negotiating Team of Michele Van Hoeck, Cyril Oberlander, Emily Chan, and Eddie Choy has met with representatives from Elsevier.
" We have engaged in our first face to face meeting.
" We have received a response.
" We are continuing negotiations.
" At such time as the Negotiating Team concludes it is appropriate the members will bring the matter to full COLD for discussion and a possible vote.
! 1415-1430: Shared Print: Status Update (Karen Schneider)
" No significant progress at this time.
" just a slow process -
! 1430-1440: Break
! 1440-1510: Report on ECC cost-per-use project, funded by COLD last year and ready for dissemination (M. Van Hoeck)
" Cost per use = ROI
" COLD initiated the project when the ECC was at risk and began to identify what libraries could eliminate if required to reduce the overall expense of the ECC.
" EAR recommended that even with full funding for ECC that the task force should complete the project and that responsible stewardship requires such a review on an annual basis.
" The spreadsheet template prepared in this work would simplify future analyses. Results should be moved to the SLDC.
" Conclusions

  • There are no obvious items we could eliminate.

  • There are some resources that we likely could replace for better value.

  • EAR should look at this report and consider what we might change.
    " Recommendations

  • Annual review assures libraries there is value in the collection.

The templates make the review a manageable task for a staff member at either the CO or a CSU library.

Analysis would enable COLD to be proactive rather than reactive with respect to possible cuts.

  • The review has value but does not tell the whole story. Some vendors said it was difficult. EAR, which has not yet seen the report, will make its own recommendations for how this information might be used.
    ! 1510-1530: Mapping ECC to CSU Educational Programs (Patrick Newell)
    " Suggests that we can use the approach laid out above to grow the ECC.
    " The ECC supports core educational programs, and we finally have educated some people about the size and the content of the ECC.
    " Data would allow us to identify core programs that are not being addressed.
    " Students would support this as would the faculty because the resources are not distributed evenly across the campuses.
    " Centrally funded resources do not need to be paid for locally.
    " If we have the analysis done outside the library that reinforces our sense of the ECC as a core.
    " What do we mean by Core Educational Programs?
    " ACTION ITEM: motion by Stephanie Brasley/2nd Karen Schneider: That we create a working group to develop (1) a strategy for linking the CSU Core Educational Programs to the content of the ECC and (2) proposals for branding and marketing. Unanimous framework for a plan to market and brand a communications strategy for branding the ECC. Patrick Newell and Emily Bonney will make preliminary investigation on how to proceed.
    ! 1530-1600: Chancellor Office Information (Leslie Kennedy)
    " David Walker reports that

  • The CO has begun hiring to replace Brandon and Kevin.

  • There has been a second wave of relocations. There may be a successful reconsideration, and Jessica who is employed by the Libraries presents a somewhat different situation. She is the foremost expert on Alma. Mallory is at San Marcos. Jessica has until May, and Mallory has until June.

  • Discussion about CO instituting such relocations across other divisions.

  • Discussion about opportunity funds as a result of these position changes. There may be other needs such as addressing accessibility issues.

  • CO unaware libraries were paying for some of these positions

  • One of recommendations from the CERPE report was a workflow manager. CO impressed with the SCELC system workflow. We wiykd need to review because of possible overlap with Alma. Current system works well for the CO. but communications to the campuses are uneven and a different workflow manager might allow for an even flow of information across the systems. Be useful to have more substantial report by March meeting.
    " Discussion about the GI 2025 symposium and the absence of any library representation. Leslie Kennedy is concerned about library visibility. Mark Stover commented that in the whole GI 2025 conversations libraries have been marginalized by CO and by some campuses.
    " Note that changes in InfoLit for 2 majors at Maritime really changed the results.
    " Alicia Virtue emphasizes that the libraries are where the students go because they stay open and provide what the students need.
    " Conversations about staffing library positions and search for Chancellor.
    ! 1600-1700: Deans Only
    " Discussion about the kind of input that we think there should be about the connection between the chancellor and the library.
    " Discussion about maker space activities and results at various campuses. Some libraries have been able to partner with other programs such as engineering and business,

Friday, December 6, 2019

! 9:00-9:30 ULMS (John Wenzler)
" Recommends viewing documentary Change the Subject
" Questionnaire about Alma and Primo received about 129 responses

  • Library Deans and committee chairs seem to be happier with Alma and Primo than staff as a whole 6-7 for chairs and staff was 5-6. Brandon was a little surprised, but John was not. On the other hand patrons may like it better. Steering committee will meet on the 13th. Some concern that satisfaction has declined slightly. Unclear how to get a sense of patron satisfaction.
    " ULMS committee developing best policies and procedures. A policy is an expectation - a shared agreement we will do the same thing - whereas best practices are recommendations for how to do things. Campuses might or might not adopt the procedures.

  • Functional committee would propose a policy.

  • ULMS would vet.

  • Functional committee would revise.

  • Proposal would go to COLD for approval and then become a policy.

  • COLD could send back to the functional committee if it seemed appropriate.
    " CSU+ for all

  • The Community Colleges and the UC are adopting Alma.

  • Several libraries are serving as developmental partners for Rapido. Might be easier if we were all doing this.

  • Issues: Fee structure? Partnership? Need for centralized staff?

  • We have a working system. What would it look like if the Ccs and the UC joined? If we are only being used and not using that’s not a good ROI.

  • We should think about consortial partners first - like Orbis Cascade - and have existing systems work rather than one institution at a time.
    ! 9:30-9:45 MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts (Patrick Newell)
    " Discussed briefly at last ScholComm meeting.
    " Review the points from the handout.
    " We will talk about it at ScholComm.
    " Patrick’s concern is that if we endorse then we are in support when we don’t have an Open Access plan in place, and if do we endorse then what happens next?
    " Mark Stover, as vice-chair of ScholComm, takes a slightly different view. He thinks that endorsement does not require that we get all our OA ducks in a row. The intentions are aspirational.
    " Amy Kautzmann points out that Ed Inch counseled that we can’t get ahead of the faculty on OA. We know faculty feel lucky when they get something published. If we push too hard faculty may not be happy. to push too hard.
    " Committee is developing an OA page to educate librarians and faculty about OA and including MIT as important information seems to make a lot of sense.
    " Discussion about whether to try to get Academic Senates involved.
    ! 9:45-9:50 Cost-sharing (Patrick Newell, Tracy Eliott, Emily Bonney)
    " Subcommittee members have contacted various consortia to determine that their fee structures are.
    ! 9:50-9:55 Confluence License, more access for COLD+ (Mark Stover & David Walker)
    " Help us with the confluence dilemma
    " David

  • CO had provided accounts for entire ULMS Committee.

  • Added COLD Exec and ScholComm, and those additions took the account to its limit.

  • Most people with access never used their ability to edit.

  • ULMS identified those who needed to edit pages and so have reduced from users with editing access from 98 to 57 so now can permit every dean to have an account and to see some restricted content.
    ! 9:55- Updates & Task Force Reports (10 min per report)
    " Scholarworks (D. Walker)

  • RFP

Gathered set of development tasks from IR community.

Also established scope of work for support to identify other essential tasks.

Got one response, but there are only two major firms that work in Samvera community and the one respondent is located in San Diego so have selected NOtch8.

$40 K for development work and $24 K for support

  • Contract

Will be finalized by 13 December and will include development timeline with a start date on or after 6 February.

Had to send out to unions and must wait 120 days from that notice.

  • CO will monitor development work.

  • new COLD committee

Patrick Newell will be on the committee as will Kevin and Kevin’s successor.

Carmen Mitchell from San Marcos will chair.

Three at-large members

Two working groups (10 positions)

  • metadata

  • digital archives

First meeting December 17

  • Few additional items

Ongoing work with data migration.

Another push to get people using new system more actively.

Core of campuses very engaged and another 10-12 apparently not interested in participating.

Need to rehire Kevin’s old position but migration work will continue.

Once get fully staffed should be in a good spot.

" EAR (C. Caballero)

  • CERPE report and suggestion for improving communication and possibility of reinventing EAR.

  • There has been a brief discussion but unclear about the process. 12 December face to face meeting changed to Zoom with a face to face at SCELC event in March.

  • CD Librarians have been invited to attend via the listserv.

  • 121 December agenda includes:

An update on Elsevier for which hope SWAT team will be present.

Process for reconfiguring EAR with Jen Fabbi and Carlos Rodriguez.

Discussion on how to support OA and review of Tim Strawn’s proposal.

Will include discussion of ECC on the agenda and the recommendation that EAR evaluate usage data in evaluating ECC.

  • There will be a slight overage for the ECC this year because of additional funding from CO, so there was a discussion of how best to use.
    " ScholCom (P. Newell)

  • Sent out the minutes.

  • Have met twice since last COLD.

  • Annual work plan is in the ScholCom minutes.

  • Copyright First Responders had 70+ attenders at two locations. Very well received, and presenter will send slides for sharing.

  • Discussing working on systemwide OA policy ASCSU is addressing.

  • Request for clarification of overlap STIM and ScholComm and need for some lines.

  • December 3 meeting where committee beginning to see traction. Several interest groups not clearly anchored in committee work so will be working to tie them to ScholCom so work is focused. Publishing interest group is most active, and they have four sub projects - journal MOUs, OJS documentation that Kevin and Melissa have begun, alternative publishing platforms including multi-media, CSU-wide journal. Also three other groups - faculty profile interest; trustee repository - Andrew Weiss; copyright.
    " Student Success Committee (T. Elliott)

  • Should be wrapping up data collection

  • If we don’t get clean data from libraries and there is no way to clean it then we cannot include those data. Must arrive in a usable format.

  • Will consult with individual campuses on the data issue.

  • IRB at issues at individual campuses should be covered by SJS approval of the project.

  • Data collection is most important part

  • Fall retention data appear to indicate library instruction has a negative impact.

  • Hope this will become a longitudinal study as we need at least four years’ worth of data for decent analysis.
    " STIM (R. Rodriguez)

  • Committee very active with a long list of projects some of which we have completed.

  • We need to sort things out and refine the ideas to a list of 19-20 projects

  • Need a survey to know more about certain issues like relationships with vendors, study room and makerspace policies.

  • There is high interest in the carpentries. Christina LeMay is leading but also Mike DeMars - how to make people aware of what they are and how to attend training.

  • Committee will continue through December and into January to refine the survey in terms of length and organization and determining who will fill it out.

  • Excellent group who will help us learn something new about ourselves as a 23-member institution.
    ! Budget with Leslie Kennedy
    " The parameters of the budget remain in flux as there are changes to what we can and cannot expect..

  • Salary savings no longer will be available.

  • Large grant project funds were available in Long Beach because Gerry Hanley was the PI.
    " Still trying to determine where funds have been committed and for what resources and concerns such as the transition for Sonoma State.
    " In the past COLD had budget, but it is unclear whether that is still the case.
    " There is a concern about ADA compliance issues, and the CO will create a task force to address this. The process is slow because VPAT reviews are slow. There is some interest in a centralized procedure for conducting these reviews. But there also is a recognition that VPAT is never a 100% solution. Campus should have an ATI committee that executes the plan and reports.

" COLD page in Confluence should include a history of our spending. At the moment no record of how we have spent money -
" Should one of the employees working for us have a break in service does that money come back to COLD?
! 1030-1100: EAR Transformation Plan (Carlos Rodriguez)
" Background before discussion

  • CERPE report included the recommendation that COLD look at EAR, its procedures and its relationship to campuses and the SDLC. How is information shared? How are campuses represented?

  • Have sent out a plan on how to do this including a timeline and objectives.
    " Proposal is for a team of Jen Fabbi, Carlos Rodriguez, Cesar Caballero and perhaps Del Hornbuckle as well as two members of EAR to form a team to plan for the reorganization with a goal of being as inclusive as possible so people from SDLC, COLD, EAR, ER Librarians, CD librarians.
    " Tight timeline.

  • December meet with SDLC and EAR and determine strategies.

  • Goal today is to have COLD review and approve the plan so we can move forward.

  • Bulk of work will be performed in January, February and March

  • Will draft an updated governance structure to share at March COLD meeting and then based on feedback seek additional feedback from stakeholders between 23 March and 15 April with final approval in the May meeting. Will submit final draft to COLD by 1 May and get feedback as to whether moving in the right direction.

  • Once COLD has approved structure would recruit members for the new governance structure and be ready to start work by 1 July.

  • Areas we would like to work on.

Review process for ECC and opt-in: what is EAR responsible for. Just content or do we want to expend beyond that?

Review process for how opt-in decisions are made. Usually little advance notice or opportunity for input so is there a way to improve communication?

Question as to whether EAR make an ask across the campuses to find out what is needed? This signals the link between the ECC and the core courses.

Review ER and CD Librarian networks and relationship with EAR and consider whether to formalize relationships more.

Consider when COLD needs to be involved.

Review the level of communication and look for ways to improve.

Review level of coordination between consortium and individual campus.

EAR should provide principles and develop a rubric for making decisions. This ties to the consortial software that Eddie is looking at and the larger picture of ECC funding.

  • Hold off on naming new chair until we know what new governance structure is. Perhaps make it into a two-year position.
    " Curt Asher moves/Mark Stover seconds to approve the plan. Passes unanimously.
    ! Conclusion Agenda.