Meeting Minutes Minutes of the Meeting held on Wednesday 26th March 2003 at ULL Present:
Mary Davies (Chair), Angela Conyers (Secretary), Adam Edwards,
Christine Muller, Brian Murphy, David Pearson and Emma Robinson. Peter
Griffiths attended for item 4. 1. Apologies for Absence Apologies were received from David Ward. 2. Minutes of the last meeting The minutes of the meeting held on 5th February 2003 were agreed as a correct record. 3. Matters arising - Item 5 - completed
- Item 6 - completed
- Item 7 - convenient date to meet still being arranged
- Item
8 - Review of Business Plans of Potential Partners - difficult to
progress until MD and BM had met with Fiona O'Brien and Jemima
Johnstone.
There were no matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda. 4. Committee of Departmental Librarians - [CDL] Peter
Griffiths, Home Office Librarian and Chair of the Committee of
Departmental Librarians (CDL) was welcomed to the meeting to explore
areas of possible collaboration with the M25 group. He explained that
CDL was an independent committee with 25 members from Government
Departments and certain large Government Agencies. Members set policy
for Government Libraries and many had a long history with collections
of historical interest. Their primary focus was on providing a service
to the department and with budget and staffing constraints this had
affected the time and funding available for preserving this historical
material. There were examples of historical material being transferred
on deposit to Academic Libraries ( e.g. legal material from the Home
Office to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies). There was no union
catalogue of government library collections. Security was a
growing issue and often worked against access, although access for
bonafide researchers would generally be arranged. Under the Freedom of
Information Act, it was recognised that there was a need for public
access space where materials could be consulted without incurring
security risks. In discussion, the following areas for future study on possibilities for cooperation and the sharing of ideas were identified: - Electronic
archives: The interest of the departmental libraries focused on
electronic resources, although several librarians were also responsible
for or had strong links with records management.
- Access for
researchers: There was possibility of collaboration over access and
funding through RSLG. There were already discussions on access to
resources for researchers in Government departments so this was a
useful time to raise the question of access.
- General Access:
Security considerations tended to limit access. There was a possibility
of exploring the M25 referral route as with the British Library or
extending virtual access.
- The possibility of transferring
historical materials to libraries on a temporary basis to make access
easier. This could be considered, although could raise questions of
funding, staffing and access for the department's own researchers.
- Inclusion in the policy of establishing a store for lesser used material. This would be likely to gain support from the RSLG.
- Access
to catalogues: this depended on the individual library, although the
majority used Unicorn. Catalogues were more likely to be on the
intranet than the internet. The possibility of M25 clump technology to
assist with the creation of a union catalogue was explored, although
access arrangements would have to worked out in advance.
- Access
to Government Libraries by researchers in HEI's on research projects
funded by government departments. Generally in these cases departments
would expect the HEI to make arrangements for library provision as part
of its funding bid, although policies here should be clarified.
- Awareness
of facilities and services in HE Libraries: It was thought that
government researchers were already getting good access to academic
libraries, though the government department libraries could hold more
information e.g. Inform M25.
- Mutual support on areas such as
staff development, disaster planning and business continuity: there was
an interest in considering support for business continuity. The CILIP
Government Libraries group and the Circle of State Librarians provided
good training courses for government library staff and programmes which
raised awareness of services in academic library could well be offered.
There was now more movement of staff between different types of
library.
- Possibility of training and visits through the
CPD25: Peter Griffiths indicated that departments would be willing to
arrange visits for M25 Library staff through CPD25, he suggested that a
visit to two different types of library could be arranged during the
parliamentary recess. It was agreed that it would be useful for MD and
AE to attend the next meeting of CDL. Peter Griffith agreed to check
this out with the group and provisional arrangements were made for MD
and AE to attend the next meeting on 9th July (11am-3pm) at the
Department of Health.
Action: MD and AE Peter
Griffiths was thanked for his contribution and all agreed that this had
been a very interesting and worthwhile discussion. AE was thanked for
arranging it. The group felt it would be helpful if CDL was
linked to the M25 Consortium, perhaps through associate membership. BM
suggested this should be put to the Steering Group. Action: MD/BM 5. Review of Responses to Questionnaire to all M25 Members The
majority of members reported back a low level of response to the
questionnaires. After discussion, it was agreed that members would send
one further plea for responses with a deadline of 1st May 2003. The
consensus was that there would be a sufficient number of responses
received to progress the analysis of returns as a representative sample
of the M25 membership. 6. Progress Report on Action Plan NHS
BM reported that he had been liaising with Shane Godbolt of LIDU.
(Library & Information Development Unit). A new group called EKAT
(Electronic Knowledge Access Team) had been set up within the London
WDCs. The contact was Claire Toomey. He had been invited to a meeting
of the library transitional group set up prior to devolution to the
WDCs and John Akeroyd had attended in his place. BM suggested that we
liaise with Claire Toomey and form a mechanism to liaise with WDC
librarians. Action: BM BM also reported
that he had been given a contact name for the NHSU. AC reported that
John Wolstenholme of TVU was arranging a meeting about access for
nurses on placement. FE
CM had made contact with
the Chair of the COFHE London circle. She had queried the areas for
collaboration, pointing out most FE libraries were very small which
made it difficult to attend training events such as CPD25. In the
discussion, the group felt that with so many links from HEIs to FE
colleges with franchised, foundation or access courses, we should
consider further what we were able to offer to them. It was suggested
that contacts should be made at the level of the Standing Conference of
North London Principals and the equivalent for Sixth Form Colleges.
Geoff Manning of the AUC London region was another possible contact. It
was agreed that the Chair of the COFHE London Circle should be invited
to attend a future meeting of the group. Action: CM RSLG
ER had spoken to a number of people about the RSLG report which was now
out and waiting for responses from the funding bodies. There was a
general discussion on the likely outcome of the RSLG report. MD had
been asked by the M25 Steering group to make a response to the report.
ER said she was attending a CURL meeting on the 8-9th April and though
she would be on study leave from the 2nd May until leaving at the end
of August she could still be available by email to produce further
reports relating to the RSLG. Other Collaborative Schemes
AC regretted that she had not yet time to explore this. Action: AC 7. Potential for Co-operation with SEMLAC AC
reported that she had tried to arrange a meeting with Margaret Cootts,
but this had not yet proved possible. It was agreed that AC and MD
would meet with Margaret at the SCONUL conference in Lancaster. Action: AC and MD 8. Report on SEUL Meeting AC
and AE reported on the recent SEUL meeting which both had attended.
This had discussed the SEMLAC business plan. AE had suggested that, as
there was much common membership with the M25 group, the work this
group was doing on collaboration and partnership could well be
extended. AC reported that she had been asked to contact LISU regarding
producing statistics for SEUL libraries. There was discussion on SEUL and its relationship with M25. MD and BM agreed to take this up with the M25 steering group. Action: AC and MD 9. A.O.B. 9.1 ALCL
MD and BM would talk to Margaret Snook, the new Chair of ALCL. Action: MD and BM 9.2 Progress on Action Plan
A report was needed by 1st May. BM and MD would draft and circulate for comment. Action: MD and BM 9.3 WILIP
MD reported that the M25 Steering Group had asked us to have discussions with Resource about WILIP. 9.4 Emma Robinson
ER was thanked for the contribution she had made to the working group
and the group gave her their best wishes for the future. She suggested
that Christine Wise from ULL should take her place on this group. There
was consensus from the Group for this proposal. Action: MD 10. Date of Next Meeting The
next meeting was fixed for 10.30am on Monday, 19th May 2003. The venue
would be ULL if Royal Holloway (Gower Street) was not available.
|
