1. Review of Past Minutes
2. Announcements/Updates
a. Update on Student Members
b. Decision on Web of Science versus Scopus
c. OSULP Strategic Planning Process and Stakeholder Input
d. Library Accreditation Process
e. Library Committee Representative for Undergraduate Research Award Committee
f. Library Research Travel Grant Program (follow-up on letter to Ed Feser)
g. Update on Meeting with Faculty Senate President (Bob Mason)
h. Open Call for Other Items
3. New Business
a. Scheduling of Meetings (February and/or March)
b. Report to the Faculty Senate (schedule and tasks)
c. How is information distributed to the faculty? Should the Committee be doing something different?
Voting Members Present: Timothy Alcon, Richmond Barbour, Dianna Fisher, Mary Beuthin, Melissa Santala, Emily Shroyer, Justin St. Germain, Enrique Thomann, Sean Yang
Ex-Officio Member Present: University Libraries – Faye Chadwell
Guests: JoAnne Bunnage, Don Frier, Kerri Goergen-Doll, Cheryl Middleton
Review of Past Minutes
Thanks to Faye for the tour. Emily briefly went over the other items that were covered in the minutes.
Announcements/Updates
Emily sent out an email asking about this position, but the Committee has not heard from or seen an application from a student. The Committee is still looking for a student member. Interested students need to send Emily an Email and she’ll refer them to Vickie Nunnemaker. Emily asked that the members of the Committee encourage students to apply for the position.
The library has investigated these two providers based on content and asked for quotes on these two products. There is not an investment in content in Web of Science; of the library moves to Scopus, OSU loses out on some of that historic content. As Scopus is owned by Elsevier, that’s also a consideration. The library hasn’t solicited feedback from faculty yet, either. Kerri (and the library) have made the assessment that Scopus does not provide an economic value to the University at this time. The amount of time and cost for training, outreach and other expenses makes it not worthwhile.
The library and Press’ strategic plan ended in 2017, and the library is working with a consultant on a new plan. Faye provided an update to the committee on where the library is. Kerri and Anne-Marie Deitering are in charge of the planning group for the library, and are working on getting feedback from the faculty and staff in the library. Faye stressed that the library will have higher level goals (like the university), and each department will have their own work plans. With external stakeholders, the library wants to make sure that people have buy-in of the plan. The library hopes to present a draft in April.
The University is in year seven of the accreditation process (which is a 7-year process). The library is working to have a draft response ready by mid-May for the accreditation body. Faye and Cheryl are taking lead on the library’s draft for the accreditation body. Looking ahead, the University will host an external review group, and they’ll want to meet with the Library Committee. In Faye’s experience, it’s usually one person. JoAnne Bunnage added that this is a university-wide endeavor: to build an understanding of this process. JoAnne is the Executive Committee liaison to the Library Committee and OSU’s Director of Accreditation. May 11 is the date for the library to respond to the university’s accreditation group. April is when the library will have something for the Committee. In the Spring of 2019, around March or April, is when accreditors are expected on campus.
The library is looking for one volunteer for this group to review award applications. The library receives the applications by the end of January, and then the committee is brought together to discuss them. The award committee consists of a library faculty member, a student, a Library Committee member, and someone from the Library Advisory Council. The criteria for this award have changed recently requiring a faculty recommendation as part of the application.
Action: Dianna offered to serve on the committee.
The Committee wants to send a follow-up note and see if there are other options for funding for this initiative.
Action: Emily initiated a vote on the matter, and the committee voted unanimously to go forward with the letter. Richmond recommended following up with Dean Larry Rodgers. Faye recommended copying Susan Capalbo and Cindy Sagers on the message.
Emily met with Bob on November 16. OSU has 26 faculty committees in addition to ad hoc committees. One of Bob’s goals as Faculty Senate President is to evaluate the committees to see if any can be consolidated. He asked for a report from the Library Committee that would be a couple of pages long, and due around the April time-frame. Committee time is expensive as far as faculty time – is this the best use of faculty time? Emily envisioned a comparison of peer institutions and what their Library Committees do. Additionally, looking at the past summaries would be a good place to start, and getting faculty feedback as well. This is also an opportunity for us to look at and tweak the mandate.
Action: Faye offered to Email her colleagues in the GWLA to get their feedback. Faye said she would put together a list of our peer institutions.
Action: Faye offered that the library could pull the information from peer institutions for the committee. Emily asked Justin to help in that effort if Faye needs any support.
Action: Mary offered to summarize our historic end-of-year reports. Faye reminded the group that there are two Faculty Senate websites. Emily gave a deadline of the end of February to have documents put together.
Action: Emily will put together a Google questionnaire to poll the group on their thoughts on the Library Committee. She’ll also send it to the of the committee members from the last five years.
Action: Emily will ask Vickie to schedule a meeting for the end of February to follow-up on this topic.
New Business
Action: Cheryl said she would send the list of liaisons to the collections council for the library’s resources.