Meeting Date: 
January 16, 2018
Date: 
01/16/2018 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm
Location: 
109 Gilkey Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

Agenda: 

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

  • OSU Accreditation is gearing up for Year 7 self-study and then onsite external review team visit 

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)

  • Comparison to other institutions
  • Summary of accomplishments over the past ~5 years
  • Input from current and past members

c.   How is information distributed to the faculty? Should the Committee be doing something different?

Minutes: 

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

  1. Update on Student Members

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.

  1. Decision on Web of Science versus Scopus – Kerri Goergen-Doll

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.

  1. OSULP Strategic Planning Process and Stakeholder Input

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. 

  1. Library Accreditation Process

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. 

  1. Library Committee Representative for Undergraduate Research Award Committee

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.

  1. Library Research Travel Grant Program (Follow-up on Letter to Provost Ed Feser)

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.

  1. Update on Meeting with Faculty Senate President Bob Mason

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.

  • Emily mentioned that a quick Google search resulted in a wide variety of Faculty Senate Library Committees. 
  • Dianna asked if our charge was up to date, and Emily said she would ask. JoAnne added that this is something the Executive Committee has been discussing, and that it’s more about this thoughtful reflection on the role of the committees.
  • Emily clarified that the Committee should start by looking at whether an institution has a library committee, and what their charge is.  Need to also capture what the members think is important in that committee. 

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.

  • Is there a committee, if so, what’s their mandate? Those are the two questions that we would look to answer. 

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. 

  • Enrique asked if there were several senate committees at other institutions, as sometimes there are several libraries in a given institution. Faye answered by saying institutions like UO only have one Faculty Senate Library Committee, and she assumes that’s the case at other institutions as well. 
  • Dianna found a Committee on Committees’ five-year review of the Library Committee on the Committee’s website. 

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.

  • Faye brought up the size of the committee. That might be something that the committee members should respond to. Is the Library Committee the right size? Could it be smaller? Larger?

Action: Emily will ask Vickie to schedule a meeting for the end of February to follow-up on this topic.

New Business

  1. How is information distributed to the faculty? Should the Committee be doing something different? Emily asked the committee to think about the value of the Library Committee and what they hope to bring to the group. Richmond felt it would be useful to establish, as a group, what the Library Committee’s responsibility is to its constituency for serving on this committee. 

Action: Cheryl said she would send the list of liaisons to the collections council for the library’s resources.