2018-10-23 Meeting notes

• Vice chair should be a person on their first year of their term–or would need to extend term to serve as chair next year.
• Need someone before next steering committee meeting on November 16.
• Contact Cathe if interested or with questions.

Feedback on Enhancements and process to Steering Committee

• Committee response
• Mallory - Like drinking from a firehose - very overwhelming and felt rushed.
• Kevin - he’s one of the voting members for his library. They looked through as a library (individual voting member). You also need to look at it strategically because you don’t want to vote on things that won’t succeed or benefit a small subset of your population.
• Cathe - voted individually and as a library. Found the whole point assignment process confusing. Committee should probably have some more involvement in advance of the vote.
• Christine - process is confusing. At some of the steering committee meetings Brandon was trying to get everyone together and get some consistency between campuses, which would have been nice.
• Jaime - we didn’t seem to have the time to plan or to get everyone together to vote. It’s days of staring at a spreadsheet trying to understand what you’re voting for. It’s not fun.
• Natasha - main issue is that they’re trying to get feedback from too many places. Perhaps a more effective way to do this in our system: have some governance for each section of the sheet and CSU people who are “in the know” (like the committees) to vote on top 10 and then send those items out to all campuses. Filter down to a smaller set of items to choose from. Extra difficult because many times the most complex things affect a lot in the system but are hard to understand.
• Bring up at next Open Forum
• Perhaps a written survey would be a more effective way to get feedback from people if that’s what they’re looking for. Cathe will suggest to the steering committee.

• Procedures from last year’s Analytics subgroup: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ild8QtTvk-yO3P07BOEtjW_lb0y2tdq684Mq0OOMewc/edit#heading=h.beorllxr1tu5
• Last year there wasn’t enough activity to have a solid process in place for reviewing unverified reports.
• There are currently 7 reports in the folder
• Christine, Jamie and Cathe will check these reports out and “verify” them. Add a description where possible indicating what the report does and when you might want to use it.

• Cathe will look into getting together a Leganto demo panel for the open forum
• Solicit feedback on the enhancement process

Student Success Document

• Progress on finding citations
• Additions/changes to Known Challenges
• Action sections:
  • Adding “library of things” or other types of things to check out
  • Take a look at the ALA magazine - they often highlight stuff like this
• Next step?
• Mallory: important to create a rubric to evaluate action options and pick the priorities for the committee
• Natasha: we can put some stuff in a “future committee ideas” section
• Jamie: some stuff has been done on a campus already, we can definitely focus on understanding and assessing some existing programs like technology checkout
• Matthew: Feels strongly about Course Reserves - such a strong piece of what’s considered “fulfillment” and has a lot of potential. Cathe also on the course reserves train.
• Focusing on Course Reserves
  • Action: look at the 2 pages we’ve created on course reserves. Anything else that should be included? Make any comments you wish to include by Friday. Cathe will start reorganizing the document to send up the chain.
  • Mallory: we don’t have to be super detailed with the projects we are going to pursue or pick exactly what those projects are going to be prior to sending the document up the chain. We could just say “we are focusing on course reserves because of these reasons. Possible course reserves projects for the committee to focus on in the 18-19 academic year are [then make a list of the stuff]”.