| Steering Group 10 March 2005 |
Steering Group Meeting Minutes
Notes from the meeting held at King's College, University of LondonPresent: John Wolstenholme, Ann Poulson, Nicky Kershaw, Graham Bulpitt, Nick Bevan, Robert Hall, Maureen Wade, Christine Wise, Mary Davies, Madura Rasaratnam 1. Apologies and welcome to new members1.i Ann Poulson, who has taken over as chair of the Disabled and Special Needs Support working group was welcomed to the Steering Group. Apologies from Maire Lanigan, Jean Yeoh and William Marsterson were noted. 2. Minutes2.i The minutes of the Steering Group meeting held on 9 December 2004 were approved. 2.ii Matters arising from the minutes not otherwise on the agenda. 2.ii.a Collaborative journals store feasibility study. MW reported that four non University of London members had been selected to participate in the feasibility study for a collaborative journals store, jointly funded with the University of London Libraries Committee. It was agreed that, if possible, the two further members should be from outside the Higher Education sector and include a museum library and a smaller specialist library, to reflect the diversity of the consortium. MW also reported that the project officer for the feasibility study, Sarah Dodgson, had started work and was liasing with the team planning the Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL) and British Library joint collaborative store. It was agreed that any joint work undertaken by SD with the BL/CURL team should reflect the interests of the Consortium's members. 2.ii.b Potential consortial deal with disaster recovery suppliers.
CW reported that the Disaster Management Working Group had discussed the issue of the a possible Consortial deal at its last meeting and agreed to recommend the deal negotiated by ALM London with the supplier Harwell. She confirmed that all the Consortium's members would be eligible to join the deal and agreed to e-mail details of the deal to members. 3. Membership Categories3.i The proposals presented by RH for a review of the membership categories were discussed. It was noted that the category of Observer Status was first introduced to give institutions considering membership the opportunity to learn more about the benefits of membership. It was felt that the lack of a time limit on observer status raised concerns that Observers' continued access to the Consortium was effectively subsidised by other members. It was also considered that the Consortium and its activities were sufficiently well known for potential members to understand what they would be signing up to. It was agreed that the Steering Group would recommend to the Consortium's members in June that the category of Observer status should be replaced by a new category of Associate member. Eligibility of membership applicants for Associate Member status will be subject to the approval of the Steering Group. Subscription rates for Associate members will be 50% of the relevant rate for full members and Associate members will be expected to participate in access arrangements that are promoted by the Consortium for institutions ineligible for participation in SCONUL Research Extra. 4. Review of the Development Plan4.i It was noted that the existing development plan covers three years ending in 2005/6. Members agreed with MW's proposal that the format and content of the plan should be reviewed.
Following a discussion on the purpose and audience of the Development Plan, it was agreed that the format could be made more accessible to members by adopting a planning framework that included a short Strategy document and annual Operational Plans. The Strategy document would set the Consortium's direction and priorities for the next few years. It would be supplemented by Annual Operational plans that contained detailed action points, from each working group and the Steering Group, outlining key deliverables for evaluation. It was confirmed that the Operational Plans would cover the academic/financial year, ie August - July. It was agreed that MW and MR would provide a draft Strategy Document for discussion at the next Steering Group meeting in May, which would be longer than usual with a 12pm start. A final version would be presented to members at the June meeting and consequent to approval an operational plan for 2005/6 could be finalised at the Steering Group meeting in July. All WG chairs were asked to attend the July meeting or send a delegate from their WG if unable to attend. 4.ii Members also agreed that the Advocacy Working Group should take up JW's suggestion of a quarterly e - bulletin updating staff at member institutions on the Consortium's activities. (Action ADVOCACY WG) 5. Student Centred Services Subgroup5.i Members noted the decision, taken at the Business meeting in January, to stand down the Student Centred Services Working Group and thanked Graham Bulpitt and the Working Group's members for their work. AP reported that the Disabilities and Special Needs Working Group had taken responsibility for access issues relating to students with disabilities. Members noted the suggestions for student centred areas of work and projects raised at the January Business meeting and agreed to appoint a sub group to consider the proposals, co-opting someone on to the SG to lead it. Members were asked to e-mail suggestions for membership of the group to RH. (Action ALL) 6. Programme for the June Annual General Meeting6.i It was agreed that the morning programme would be a mix of presentations from internal and external speakers. The Quality Working Group and the Disabilities and Special Needs Working Groups would present an update on their work. An update of the work of the Web Review Group would be given as part of the afternoon business meeting. Members also agreed to invite ALM London and London Higher to give presentations related to the changing policy environment. RH reported that a number of commercial suppliers had expressed interest in exhibiting at the AGM. Suggestions for possible exhibitors included LMS supplies, Campus Card and RFID supplies. It was agreed that subject to the availability of space and facilities at the venue suppliers would be contacted and offered the opportunity to exhibit. (Action MR) 7. Elections to the Steering Group
7.i It was noted that the following Steering Group members were eligible for election or re-election at the June AGM: 8. Institutional Repositories8.i Members discussed a proposal, drafted by Elizabeth Chapman (Resource Discovery Working Group & UCL) and Martin Moyle (UCL), for a possible M25 Consortium bid to the JISC repositories call. The draft bid proposed a centrally hosted repository service initially covering five project partners, including the LSE and UCL, with UCL leading the bid. As the these two institutions were already included in the SHERPA LEAP project, it was agreed that the number of partners should be expanded to 7, including LSE and UCL, to give greater scope for the project to fully reflect the diversity of the Consortium's membership. Members decided that the Consortium should join the UCL led bid and MW agreed to update Paul Ayris and Elizabeth Chapman on the results of the discussion. MW asked members to e-mail comments on the bid to her by afternoon of Friday 11 March. (Action ALL) 9. Financial Issues9.i NB reported on expenditure and income for the current financial year. He indicated that a draft budget for 2005/6 would be brought to the next SG meeting on May 5 and the Chairs of Working Groups were asked to submit anticipated expenditures by April 18. It was noted that until the strategy was finalised the budget would only be indicative but that it was likely that subscription levels would remain unchanged. 10. OCLC10.i MW reported that she had been approached by the OCLC with the possibility of a Consortial deal on e-book subscriptions. It was noted that SUPC were currently out to tender for an e-books deal. It was agreed that the Consortium would not engage in Consortial purchasing activities but would seek to influence bodies such as JISC and SPUC on national and regional purchasing agreements. 11. Reports from Working Groups11.i Reports from the following WG's were noted: Advocacy, Collaboration and Partnership, CPD25, Disabled and Special Needs Support, Disaster Management, Quality, Resource Discovery and London Health Libraries and M25 Consortium joint group. In ML's absence, MW reported on progress with the web review, noting that a brainstorming meeting was scheduled for 23 March.
11.ii Vacancies were noted in a number of the working groups and GB's suggestion to send out a general call for interest in existing vacancies was accepted. MW agreed to send an e-mail to all working group Chairs asking for details of vacancies and would then e-mail LIS M25 - DIRS asking for recommendations of staff members who might be interested. 12. Any other business12.i MW reported that Sally Rumsey, the E Services librarian at the LSE, had approached her on behalf of an E - librarians group, currently including Kings, SOAS, Westminster, UCL and the LSE. The group had made a request to be formally incorporated within the Consortium as a special interest group. The Steering Group agreed to recommend to the AGM that the group be formally incorporated as a Special Interest group within the Consortium on the condition that the group submitted terms of reference to the Steering Group, that it became open to membership from other members of the Consortium and that it made an annual report to the Steering Group. 13. The programme of meetings in 2005 was confirmed13.i Steering Group
13.ii Chairs of Working Groups lunch: will be held before each SG meeting (unless notified otherwise) starting at 1pm. 13.iii Full consortium: all day meeting commencing at 10am
Maureen Wade 
|
||||
