Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 14th July 2003 at Royal Holloway University of London (Gower Street)

Present: Mary Davies (Chair), Angela Conyers (Secretary), Adam Edwards, Christine Muller, Brian Murphy, David Pearson, Geoff Smith, David Ward and Christine Wise.

1. Apologies for Absence and Welcome to Geoff Smith

There were no apologies for absence. Geoff Smith was welcomed as a new member of the group representing the British Library.

2. Minutes of the last meeting

David Ward's name was added to the list of attendees and David Pearson's apologies were added to minute 2. The initials DP were replaced with DW for action in minute 6. The minutes of the meeting held on 19th May 2003 were then agreed as a correct record.

3. Matters arising

There were no matters arising not included on the agenda.

4. British Library - Geoff Smith (GS)

• GS had had initial discussions with AB and SE and a couple of areas had been identified for action.
• RLN - issues of whether it would go ahead and what the implications would be. GS felt the pace had been slower than expected but BL endorsed the principles contained in the report. David Mason, consultant, would be reporting on governance and cost issues including proposals for structure. BL was assuming that the RLN would go ahead and that BL would be a key player. GS was aware of HE concerns.
• Regional agenda - BL was working with regional bodies and undertaking pilot work with two regions to ensure engagement with libraries and other domains. BL was awaiting resolution of the LMAL and LLDA situation. As far as Resource was concerned, the change in the Chief Executive had been unfortunate but GS was hoping to meet with Andrew Stephens soon.
• On specific areas:
  • Access and referral side - the BL referral scheme was successful and now INSPIRE development also.
  • Resource discovery - work in progress. In the process of implementing Ex Libris software so will be in a better position to link with resource discovery developments. BL is also a member of CURL and involved in contributing records to SUNCAT.
  • Collection Development - BL has undertaken a few small scale projects which have shown that overlap is not as high as was thought. BL still works with LSE on official publications and IALS on foreign legal publications. Report will be published soon which will point to the difficulties as well as the potential.
  • Staff Development - GS would talk with Jean Yeoh.
  • Disabilities - BL also represented on M25 Working Group on Disabled and Special Needs Support

BM had been to a meeting where the future of LMAL and its relationships with other agencies had been discussed. He asked what was the BL view of LLDA and LMAL. BM explained that Resource wanted the London agency set up by April 04, and LLDA would remain a separate agency with representation on LMAL. LMAL would be the strategic body and LLDA would be involved with library developments and cross-domain work.

AE commented that the BL referral scheme was working well and had now been extended as a SCONUL scheme. AE was on an M25 student-centred working group which was looking at providing a page of information for international students. GS advised caution in extending the referral scheme to this group.

DW asked if the BL Cooperation and Partnership Programme was still running. GS explained that it was mainly used for Public Libraries under the regional umbrella, but it was still running.

BM asked about the Research Libraries Network. The report had been cautious and tools were needed to find who had got what and to provide a framework. There were particular difficulties in science with the growth of electronic resources. Consortium buying was one way ahead. DP described how a collection development initiative with the Wellcome had been very difficult to implement. The problem of stock being at Boston Spa and linked to ZETOC and document supply had not yet been resolved.

GS mentioned the CURL study on the future of monograph inter-lending and said a central model was still the best, but recommended the move to a central approach on what is bought for 'back-up'. Responses were currently being sought from CURL libraries and draft proposals were due at the end of July.

There was a discussion of the question of co-operative purchasing and the difficulties of responsibilities to the institutions' main users; an experiment between Glasgow and Strathclyde had not met with much success. How strong would the RLN be? The JISC response to the RLN report was awaited.

MD suggested a joint BL/M25 day. GS said that the first stage was to familiarise BL staff with the M25 and he hoped there would be an event at the BL in the autumn. Secondly, a discussion event at senior level towards the end of the year when links between the RLN and BL strategy may be clearer.

MD thanked GS for his contribution and was pleased that he would now be a regular member of this group.

5. Report and Analysis of M25 Survey - Susan Baker (SB)

SB went through the findings of the Key Partners and Key Themes survey. She noted lack of mention of, for example, CVCP, LLDA, e-university and Ufi. Was it that respondents did not know what was going on in these areas - or had some bodies been taken as read? On the other hand, the high number of links with NHS and FE were noted. She suggested that a follow-up survey could use more closed questions, for example, are you involved with the e-university - yes/no?

She identified as possible themes to explore, the archive collections, business support, and international links. Gaps were thought to be due either to lack of knowledge or lack of time. CM suggested some links may be regarded as confidential to the institution. DW asked if the data was sufficiently accurate to go forward, or was more information needed. Susan Baker saw this as a first step and her advice would be to plug some of the gaps.

GS suggested there were some patterns emerging, but this was very much a first impression and it was difficult to get a true picture. If another questionnaire was issued, then more guidance was needed as to what to exclude/include. CM suggested answers would depend very much as who was filling in the form and how much knowledge they had.

BM suggested the results could go on the web as an indication of what work was going on. MD felt that further thought was needed and suggested it go on the agenda for the next meeting. She pointed out that the survey had been successful in its initial aims of raising awareness and providing a point of contact, and potentially helping inform partnerships, especially for joint funding bids. She thanked Susan and Maria for their work on analysing the results. Action: MD

6. Progress on Action Plan: update from members

• FE

  CM had nothing further to report.

• LHEC

  MD reported that the public version of the LHEC business plan was not yet available. MD would chase.

• LLDA

  BM and MD had met with Graham Fisher and had discussed possibilities for joint working. GF had agreed to attend a future WG meeting.

• Government Libraries

  AE and MD reported on their progress with CDL. MD had attended a CDL Committee where about 18 members had been present.

  They were interested in:

  • Access and Resource Discovery (though security may be a problem)
  • Help in securing funding to get a union catalogue for London and then a national resource
  • Sharing of good practice in working groups eg CPD25, Disaster Planning and possibly Disability.
  • Joint bids for funding; the group was very impressed with M25 developments and as they had no subscriptions they had no funds and therefore difficulty with applying for external funds.

  The CDL had formed a small group to look at these issues and would get back to us when they had decided priorities. AE and MD would then meet again with Peter Griffiths.

  MD mentioned the libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords as another discrete group. The Working Group felt that this link was very useful in raising awareness of the services available.

• SEUL

  MD and BM had met with Josephine Burt of SEUL as the planned SEUL meeting had been cancelled. They had discussed the sharing of good practice, possible cross-membership of groups, and joint funding bids. MD had been invited to speak at their next meeting in November.

• Other Consortia

  AC apologised that she had not found time to explore these in any details. A cursory look had suggested joint training was one of the primary functions.

• NHS

  BM reported that the Steering Group had confirmed John Wolstenholme's group on access for students to NHS Trust libraries as a Task Group. An event had been held on 10 July, chaired by Richard Osborn from the NWLWDC, to launch London Health Libraries to the higher education community. It included sessions on the NHSU and NHS/HE forum "Users First" report presented by Paul Ayris and John Thornhill.

7. Steering Group Matters

• RSLG - The London University RSLG group was chaired by Jean Sykes, with Suzanne Enright representing the M25.
• MASC - UCL has been successful in getting £54.5K from the Vice Chancellor's Development Fund for Phase 2 of the MASC project (Mapping Access to Special Collections in the London Region). UCL will lead the project which will produce a web-enabled database covering all special collections material in the M25 Consortium (Phase 1 covered material in the University of London Libraries).

8. Invitations to next meeting

It was agreed to ask either Graham Fisher, Director of the LLDA or Richard Osborn of the NWLWDC.

9. A.O.B.

• WILIP - it was noted that the WILIP report was now due out in September
• Members of the Group - AC would be leaving the group and MD thanked her for all her help and hard work in the role of secretary. CM had a new role but hoped to continue to be a member of the group.

10. Date of Next Meeting

Date was subsequently agreed as Wednesday, 17th September 2003 at ULL, Senate House at 2 p.m.