Meeting Minutes

Meeting held Friday 13 February 2004 at the Courtauld Institute

Present: James Anthony (UCL), Anne Barrett (Imperial), Lyn Bowen (Westminster), Chris Brewer (IOE), Joanne Kilgannon (Courtauld), Judith Preece (University of East London), Glyn Price (LSE), Colin Rennie (SOAS), Katie Sambrook (KCL), Christine Wise (ULL – Chair)

1.                  Welcome and introductions

CW welcomed everyone to the meeting and introductions were made.

2.                  Minutes of the meeting held Thursday 13 November 2003 and minute-taking

The minutes of the meeting held 13 November 2003 were confirmed as an accurate record.  They would shortly be made available on the DMG web site.  Action – GP to arrange upload of minutes on to web site.

CR took the minutes of the current meeting.

3.                  Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting held 13 November 2003

Under item 2, it was confirmed that the minutes for the meeting held 18 September 2003 were now available from the DMG web site.

Under item 4, CW reported that the updated version of the M25 DMG plan for 2003-04 had been prepared and sent to the M25 Steering Group for consideration at their meeting on 3 December 2003.  The content of this report had, further, been used in the interim update of the M25 Consortium Development Plan 2002/3-2005/6, which had been considered by M25 Directors at the M25 Consortium Business Day on 29 January 2004.

Under item 8, JA reported that the work to update the list of disaster recovery and other suppliers was ongoing.

4.                  Consortial Disaster Recovery Contracts

JA reported that he had been approached by a representative of Harwells who had made an initial offer of a consortial disaster recovery contract to M25 Consortium members.

This offer was discussed and the following issues were flagged:

·        The M25 Steering Group would make the ultimate decision whether to accept the offer.  The DMG would act in an advisory capacity and make recommendations;

·        Other disaster recovery companies would be invited to submit, for comparison, offers for contracts on a consortial basis;

·        Harwells would be invited, as a first step, to make a full presentation and make the terms and conditions clear;

·        An M25-Consortium-wide agreement might not necessarily be appropriate for all M25 Consortium members; some might already have contracts in place to suit their individual needs.  Bearing this in mind the DMG should ascertain, as a first step, current agreements already in place with individual institutions.

Action - JA to survey M25 Consortium disaster planning representatives via the M25 DMG Information list to establish member libraries’ current arrangements.

5.                  Training Events

Writing a Disaster Control Plan, 2 December 2003

JA reported that feedback on this event had been very good.  The course had been fully subscribed and half of the M25 Consortium member libraries were represented.  There was a possibility it could be run elsewhere; enquiries had already been received from throughout the country and collaboration could be sought with University of Sussex, East Midlands and North West Academic Libraries (NoWAL).  JA commented that any future workshop should give greater emphasis to the M25 Disaster Control Plan template.

Dealing with Damaged Stock, 17 March 2004

CB was developing this seminar on behalf of the DMG.  She had finalised most of the speakers for the programme and sought suggestions from DMG members on experts on insurance, loss adjustment and conservation.  She was planning a simulated disaster scenario allowing attendees to gain practical experience.

Running a Disaster Scenario Training Event in your Library, 21 April 2004

CW was developing this half-day seminar on behalf of the DMG.  She had arranged for Owen Bradford and Jon Purcell to make a presentation as the core of the seminar content, and would be liaising with them shortly to draw up a more detailed programme.

CW commented that proposals for training events to be staged in the academic year 2004/05 should be prepared soon, in order to be included in CPD 25’s planning schedule.

6.         Mutual Support Agreement – paper prepared by CW for the M25 Consortium Business Meeting of 29 January 2004

CW reported that the M25 Consortium Mutual Support Agreement was currently under review.  All members of the M25 Consortium were signatories to the global Mutual Support Agreement, by virtue of their membership of the Consortium.  Feedback from the Creative Arts Working Group, which had expressed interest in a subject-specific model, had indicated that the development of a further subject-specific agreement on the Education Libraries model might be complex and time-consuming.  It had, therefore, been proposed to develop a new approach, based on the existing Mutual Support Agreement, but with the enhancement that the subject areas for which each member library would provide additional support on a best endeavours basis would be in line with the subject strengths defined through InforM25 in Find-a-Library (www.M25lib.ac.uk/Guide/directory).  This would remove the need for bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements, and would build upon the existing, institutionally-agreed definitions of subject strengths.

This proposal had been discussed by the M25 Steering Group at its meeting on 3 December 2003, and it had been agreed to propose this enhancement to the M25 Directors at the M25 Consortium Business Meeting on 29 January 2004.  CW, who was taking the lead on this matter on behalf of the M25 Steering Group and the DMG, had made the presentation at the meeting.  In principle, there had been widespread agreement from M25 Directors in favour of the enhanced Mutual Support Agreement.  A number of issues had been raised, including:

·        The practicalities of using the Find-a-Library taxonomy to identify libraries with particular subject strengths;

·        The ability of support institutions to cope with extra demand on services, especially at busy times of the year;

·        Arrangements for users other than students;

·        Cost recovery for additional services provided;

·        Access to external databases as defined by the terms of licensing agreements.

CW would be canvassing further feedback from M25 Directors before 1 March 2004.  She would then report back to the M25 Steering Group on 3 March 2004 in advance of further action.  CW thanked GP for his continuing help in preparing the paperwork for the enhanced Mutual Support Agreement proposal.

Action - CW and GP to liaise and to report back on progress at next DMG meeting.

7.         Business and service continuity planning

AB had been conducting a literature review in this area and had identified useful websites.  Many of these were pay-to-view sites and/or were based in the USA or Australia.  Those located in the UK, such as the British Library and English Heritage, had a different emphasis other than the priorities currently identified by the DMG.  The DMG recorded its thanks to AB for her work.

CW and KS reported back on their scoping meeting held on 27 January 2004.  KS was liaising with colleagues currently involved in projects relating to risk assessment and health and safety risk assessment.  The DMG recorded its thanks to KS for her work.

CW had recently met Jane Glanville, Director of London First, at a meeting of the M25 Collaboration & Partnership Working Group.  She had discussed possible areas of mutual co-operation, including business and service continuity planning, an area in which London First had recently been active.

Action – AB to continue the literature review.  AB, CW and KS would meet to bring together their scoping work and would report back to the next DMG meeting.

8.         Review of the M25 Disaster Management Group Website

GP demonstrated the new configuration for the M25 Disaster Control Plan template, which was being revised to ensure compatibility with web browsers and compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.  DMG members endorsed the work which had been carried out so far by GP and the M25 Systems team.  Content would be transferred to the newly-configured template.  The DMG thanked GP and the M25 Systems Team for their work.

Action - GP to work with the M25 Consortium systems team to continue template and website development.

CR gave a report on the drafting and draft content in IT disaster preparedness for inclusion in the M25 Disaster Control Plan template.  He asked that any feedback be directed to him.  The DMG thanked CR for his work.

Action – ALL to forward comments to CR.  CR to bring a final draft to the next meeting.

KS gave a report on the draft content on special collections which revised and enhanced existing information.  She asked that any feedback be directed to her.  The DMG thanked KS for her work.

Action – ALL to forward comments to KS.  KS to bring a final draft to the next meeting.

The DMG agreed that the content for IT issues and special collections would be agreed at the next meeting and made available in the Disaster Control Plan template to coincide with the launch of the newly-configured template.  This was anticipated to be in May 2004.

9.                  Review of DMG Membership

There were no further nominees to be invited to join the DMG.  It was agreed to continue to have membership of the DMG as a standing item on the agenda.

10.              AOB

JA raised the issue of reviewing the entire content of the M25 Disaster Control Plan template.  The DMG noted that the mechanism for regular reviews would have to be agreed, and that it would be timely to review the entire content prior to the launch of the newly-configured template.

Action – CW to place on the agenda of the next meeting.

11.       Next Meeting            

The next meeting would be held at Imperial College on 13 May 2004.