Minutes -- March 10, 2009

Addenda to March 10, 2008, Minutes

To the International and Area Studies New Services Model Team
From: Merle Bowen, Al Kagan, and Andrew Orta
Subject: International and Area Studies NSM Team Minutes and Website

As you know, the minutes for our March 10th meeting were not sent for review. Of course, Barbara left for long travels just after that meeting and she was working on finishing up the report. However the unreviewed minutes are posted on the NSM website.

In any case, we think the minutes do not fully reflect what was a detailed and rather widely supported discussion regarding the importance of maintaining the distinct identities of the component units of the NSM. Our greatest concern is with the paragraph that reads:

"Then the discussion turned to the subject of maintaining identity ('branding') of the units considered for merger into the new international and area studies library. However, it was raised that the discussion should be about the identity of the new unit, not the identity of each component of the new unit. Critical elements for the new unit include outreach activities, subject specialists, collection, and instruction. "

This misrepresents what was a fairly extended discussion, the upshot of which was that the continuing identity of the components is CRUCIAL to the identity of the new unit as described in the committee's recommendations.

We suggest that all but the first sentence of the above paragraph be deleted and replaced by text of the “addendum” in the final report which reads as follows:

“Although at least one member of the group thought that the component names should be left to the proposed smaller implementation team, there was general agreement that the team recommend the following terminology. Each component would be named starting with its current area designation with the addition of the words “Library Collections and Services" (e.g., "Latin American and Caribbean Library Collections and Services").”

Finally, we have not closely monitored the NSM website, so we were surprised to see that the "vision statement" drafted by Scott was included on the website. This vision statement was never approved by the team, nor was Scott ever asked by the team to draft such a statement. On the other hand, Andrew was asked to draft a few paragraphs as a step toward a vision statement, and although his language was not used in the final report, it seems to us that it has as much or ore standing than what is mistakenly labeled the committee's "vision statement" n the site. We think Scott’s text should be deleted from the website.