Time and Location of Meeting
October 20, 20081:30 pm - 3:00 pm 428 Library
- Revision of Patron Conduct Policy (Scott Walter) – 10 minutes
- Review of compliance with GA Evaluation Policy (Scott Walter) – 10 minutes
- Music Special Collections Management Policy (Scott Schwartz) – 10 minutes
- Transition of Library E-resources (Wendy Shelburne and Beth Sandore) -25 minutes
- Diversity metrics for Spring 2009 budget report (Cindy Ingold and Emily Love) – 25 minutes
- Laptop lock check out (Tina Chrzastowski) – 10 minutes
Beth Sandore (Chairing for Paula Kaufman), Tina Chrzastowski, Scott Schwartz, Mary Stuart, Greg Youngen, Scott Walter, David Ward, Lynn Wiley; Kathie Veach, Wendy Shelburne; Recording: Chris Johns
- Research Policy Update – Kathie Veach (see Draft of Oversight of Awards, Grants and Contracts)
This revision addresses the need for adequate time to review, approve and process funding proposals, and establishes timeframes for each step of the process.
- Proposal narratives, budgets and other commitments are to be submitted to the Associate University Librarian (AUL )for IT and the Grants & Contracts Specialist (GCS) no later than 30 days. This is a change from the 2004 revision of 18 days, however after discussion during this meeting, this 30 day requirement is not seen as unreasonable, and will be redrafted 20 business days prior to the deadline (approximately the same lead timeframe). Approval will be provided within 5 days of receipt.
- Final copies of the proposal will be provided to the GCS, AUL for IT, the Library Business Office (LBO) for Library approval and processing no later than 15 working days prior to the deadline.
- LBO submits proposals and transmittal forms to OSPRA 10 days prior to submission the the granting agency.
- LBO provides copies of submitted proposals to P.I. within 5 working days after submission.
- I. notifies via email (firstname.lastname@example.org) within 5 working days after notification of acceptance or rejection of the application.
- In cases where an RFP posting has fewer than 30 days lead time prior to the deadline, the Library will work closely with an investigator to meet the time constraints.
- Cost-share issues will require conversation with and between staff…details are not fully worked out yet. Written agreements for cost share complicate the process, and outcome is more difficult to predict.
- Revision of Patron Conduct Policy- Scott Walter
Recent incidents in the UGL prompted editing changes into the Patron Conduct Policy:
- Violators of University policy can result in sanctions from the Library (CITES already ban login breaches).
- Links have been added to Campus Governing policies
- Non-patron (staff) policies have been removed
- Cell phone ban has been rewritten to permit with courteous use
- Add “do not unplug Library equipment…”
- Edit Page 3 on Disruptive Behavior to state “distraction” (which includes more than just noise)
- Discussion about issuing locks ensued; concerns expressed for liability if the lock fails (and where to lock laptops to).
- Staff telephone use was discussed as pay phones are no longer provided near most Libraries…do we need a policy? Staff phones are the only option in some locations/instances; therefore this is left to the discretion of the Unit. A policy would be useful in instances of demanding patrons.)
- Review of compliance with GA Evaluation Policy – Scott Walter
As of January 2008, it has been a policy (requirement) that GA evaluations go to the HR Director, however compliance has been at only ~27%. GA allocations are likely to be reviewed again this year in light of potential budget issues, and review at the campus level will be looking at GA policy (vouchers, tuition and fee waivers). Some units did a good job of GA review in their annual reports (some did not), however the content of what was sent to HR was good.
Scott reminds us to make sure face-to-face interviews and reviews get to HR by Election Day.
- Music Special Collections Management Policy – Scott Schwartz
Mark Puente (Digital Initiative & Special Collections), Tom Teper, Scott Schwartz, Bill Maher are working on an agreement proposing how we are going to collaborate to preserve, provide good care, provide access to books, papers, recordings and manuscripts. AC is involved in response to concern (during Mark Puente’s search) over the issue of archives existing outside of general archives. A mentoring policy is also being considered.
- Transition of Library E-resources – Wendy Shelburne
Moving to real electronic resource management: Verde (purchased from ex-Libris) after lag times and delays finally got started this summer.
- All of Elsevier is in Verde; we are renewing and ordering now
- 300,000 e-books
- Springer books
- Verde will be able to talk to Voyager via Link Resolver (both SFX)
- Sharif has done a major cleanup of SFX
- Display Logic—user needs a journal from Science Direct, will route them directly there
- SFX (~4years)) remap data to the ORR, which is a lot like cleaning SFX—behind-the-scenes better management because of working from the same knowledge base.
- We have ONE e-resource database (SFX-ExLibris)
- Since we waited, bulk loading has been implemented, so we do no more hand-loading.
- TDNet: they send us the entire database, whether we have content or not.
- SFX is a link resolver for journals that move urls
- Should not notice any difference other than working better.
- TDNet subscription will be phased out this year.
- Diversity metrics for Spring 2009 budget report – Cindy Ingold
Goals and metrics have been developed (see attachment) The Diversity Committee is the responsible party, and is seeking feedback via email.
- Library has no definition of ‘diversity’
- Campus doesn’t have a good definition either
- What criteria is used to define a public vs. internal website?
- ACTION ITEM: Feedback requested by October 31.
- Laptop lock check out – Tina Chrzastowski (Tabled)
Mary: Re Paula’s statement (email) and prospect of letters of t-contracts to AP’s…nothing is in the planning or specific now. Considering needs strategies and what kind of steps need to be taken to issue t-contract (want to follow prescribed guidelines). Considering services in the context of size/scale:
- What do we want to maintain as strengths?
- Nothing is across the board
- No written statements
- Strategic change, not across the board
- Opportunities for collaboration
- Living in an ambiguous world, cannot promise anything